NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • February 2008

2008: Jan • Feb • March
2007: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sept • Oct • Nov • Dec
2006: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec
2005: Jan/Feb/Mar • Apr/May/Jun/Jul • Aug/Sept/Oct • Nov/Dec

More GM news is available on our news feed at www.gmfreeireland.org/news.feed1.php

29 February 2008

Biotech Industry Escapes Responsibility for its GM Crops in England but Not in Wales

GeneWatch UK, Press Release, 29 February 2008

If genetically modified organisms (GMOs) cause damage to our rare and protected wildlife, neither the state nor the biotech companies will have to clean up such damage under proposed new legislation to transpose the EU Environmental Liability Directive. Today, the UK government has launched its second consultation on the Directive. Despite more than a decade of public concern over the environmental impacts of GM crops the government has sent a clear signal to Biotech companies that they don't have to take responsibility for their products.

Under the proposals, biotechnology companies who cause damage to protected wildlife will be able to avoid responsibility by claiming that current science had not foreseen that specific damage and that they had been granted a permit to release the GMO into the environment. This reasoning will also be open for use by many other types of regulated businesses, for example the waste and chemical industries. In order for them to be held liable it will have to be shown that they broke conditions of their permit.

GeneWatch welcomed the proposals by the Welsh Assembly Government who in contrast to England will not allow such defenses. In the draft legislation for Wales, Biotech companies will be liable should protected habitats be damaged.

In the late 1990s the UK government was poised to allow commercial planting of GM crops. It was only through enormous public opposition that scientific studies were extended and the damage that could be caused by some GM crops was exposed. "The current regulations governing the release of these GM crops do not require such extensive studies to be carried out and yet companies will be able to hide behind these regulations if something goes wrong" said Becky Price of GeneWatch UK. We strongly support Wales in its acknowledgement of the uncertainty around these crops and that they are upholding the 'polluter pays' principle, which is the aim of this legislation.

GeneWatch welcomes the extension of the European Directive to include some of England's most important nature protection areas, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), in the scope of the draft regulations. However, Government proposals still exclude many of the UK's rare priority species protected by Government action plans, including red squirrels, water voles and scarce farmland birds.

'The inclusion of SSSIs in this legislation is a fantastic step in the right direction, but there is a lot of scope for the Government to really support the existing environmental priorities in this country through this law, and only some of the opportunities are being used', said Sandy Luk GeneWatch's legal expert on environmental liability .

Contacts:

Sandy Luk, eppac limited: 07879 655779;
Becky Price, GeneWatch UK 07949 396328

Notes to editors:

Full details of the consultation are at
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/env-liability-regs/index.htm

The Environmental Liability Directive was passed, despite much controversy, as a result of a series of environmental disasters, starting with a dioxin leak from a herbicide plant in Seveso, Italy, in July 1976, and culminating in the Erica and Prestige tanker oil spills in 2000 and 2002, and a toxic zinc mine spill in the DoÒana area of southern Spain in April 1998, which all had devastating effects on the environment and killed sometimes hundreds of thousands of birds, fish and other animals.

The Government's first consultation identified a number of measures in the Regulatory Impact Assessment, which, if introduced, would strengthen environmental protection and provide an overall benefit to society, for example the inclusion of SSSIs in the legislation. However, despite this the Government at the time was opposed to all such measures , as it favoured a so-called ëminimum implementation approach'.

Currently, 20% per cent of land designated as a SSSI in England is classified as being in unfavourable condition by Natural England. In addition, 35% is said to be unfavourable but recovering. Some of the main reasons for the adverse condition of SSSIs include overgrazing, moor burning, drainage and water pollution.

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 gives some protection to Government (biodiversity) action plan habitats and species, but it does not provide for protected rights that can be enforced if they are attacked (for example if habitats or species are damaged through a pollution incident).

GMOs in Africa: food and agriculture: 2007 status report
Is Africa rejecting genetic engineering in food and agriculture?

Authors: S. Moola; V. Munnik
Publisher: African Centre for Biosafety, 2007

Full text of document : http://www.biosafetyafrica.net/portal/images/ACB/gmos_in_africa.pdf

This booklet outlines recent key trends, developments and actors in the debate on genetic engineering (GE) in food and agriculture in Africa. It also highlights a number of the key talking points including the harmonisation of bio-safety legislation, the new green revolution in Africa, and genetic diversity.

It is argued that more than 10 years have passed since Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) were first commercialised in the world, yet out of more than 50 African countries, only South Africa has explicitly taken bio-safety decisions to authorise the commercial cultivation and importation of GMOs for the purposes of food, feed and processing.

Key points highlighted throughout recent trends include:

•

several African countries such as Sudan, Angola and Zambia have fiercely resisted receiving GM food aid, precipitating reforms in food aid policies internationally

•

the GM push in Africa has recorded several significant setbacks and failures, with Florence Wambugu's GM sweet potato in Kenya and the Gates Foundation's GM sorghum in South Africa being the most prominent

•

this rejection represents a huge set back for crucial components of the ëNew Green Revolution in Africa' push, which is heavily funded by the Gates Foundation

•

2007 has not been a good year for GE in South Africa. The first ever GM cassava field trials also faced the thumbs down from the South African regulatory authorities

•

while the GE lobby has waged a heavily resourced battle for acceptance of GMOs, public reaction has in many instances been hostile. The media has been extremely critical of GMOs in countries such as Kenya, Zambia and South Africa.

USA: Agricultural trade squeals

Washington Times, Commentary, 29 February 2008. By By Henry I. Miller / Gregory Conko.

European Union officials adamantly refuse to let the World Trade Organization save them from themselves.

Despite a 2005 WTO ruling that some European countries were breaking international trade rules by prohibiting the importation of gene-spliced, or "genetically modified (GM)," crops and foods, Europe remains recalcitrant, unrepentant ó and on the verge of slaughtering its own livestock industry.

European Union agriculture ministers failed yet again Monday to permit imports of five biotech crops intended for animal feed, causing a group that represents European farmers to warn that without greater use of gene-spliced crops, the livestock industry could be decimated.

European shortages of grain for animal feed and soaring prices ó caused by both the rejection of gene-spliced grains and the diversion of corn to production of ethanol for fuel ó are causing panic among livestock producers. Pig and poultry farmers have been forced to reduce their output, while consumer consumption is down because of higher prices.

Although the WTO bluntly scolded the EU for imposing a moratorium on gene-spliced crop approvals from 1998 to 2004, that finding was a foregone conclusion. European politicians, including then-EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstroem, had acknowledged that the moratorium was "an illegal, illogical, and otherwise arbitrary line in the sand."

The WTO also made clear that national bans on certain gene-spliced foods in Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, and Luxembourg were blatant violations both of those countries' treaty obligations and EU rules, but the European Commission has been impotent in persuading its rogue members to conform to EU policies. Not only are most of those national bans still in place, but last October, French President Nicolas Sarkozy instituted a new moratorium on the commercial cultivation of gene-spliced corn.

The most important victory for the United States and its partners was the WTO's judgment that the European Commission failed to abide by its own regulations by "undue delaying" of approvals for 25 gene-spliced food products. The culprit here was (and is) the EC's highly politicized, sclerotic, two-stage approval process: Each application first must be cleared for marketing by various scientific panels, and then voted on by politicians, who routinely contravene the scientific decisions.

As the WTO pointed out, the relevant EC scientific committees had recommended approval of all 25 product applications. But, for transparently political reasons rather than concerns about consumer health or environmental protection, EU politicians repeatedly refused to sign off on the final approvals.

It is important to remember that these are superior products made with state-of-the art technology that is both more precise and predictable than other techniques for the genetic improvement of plants. The safety and importance of gene-splicing technology have been endorsed by dozens of scientific bodies around the world, including the French Academies of Science and Medicine, U.K. Royal Society, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, American Medical Association, and many others.

The good news is that the WTO chastised the European Union for failing to follow its own regulatory rules. The bad news is the absence from the panel report of any condemnation of those rules themselves, though they are blatantly unscientific and impose gratuitous regulation and clear violations of WTO-enforced trade treaties.

Under various of those treaties, member countries are free to enact any level of environmental or health regulations they choose ó so long as (1) every such regulation is based on the results of a risk analysis showing some legitimate risk exists and (2) the degree of regulation is proportional to that risk.

Every risk analysis by countless scientific bodies worldwide has shown that the splicing of new genes into plants, per se, introduces no incremental risks. A 2001 European Commission report summarizing the conclusions of 81 different EU-funded research projects spanning 15 years concluded that, because gene-spliced plants and foods are made with highly precise and predictable techniques, they are at least as safe as and often safer than their conventional counterparts.

In 2003, then-EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Affairs David Byrne acknowledged that the official European Commission position was that currently marketed gene-spliced crop varieties posed no greater food safety or environmental threat than the corresponding conventional food varieties.

None of this has translated into more enlightened decisions on either policy or individual products, however (although over the last few years the EU has approved a small, token number of gene-spliced product applications in order to pretend its regulatory apparatus is now in compliance with the WTO ruling).

By requiring extraordinary testing procedures for an admittedly safer technology, the EU approach is not only disproportionate but manifests an inverse relationship between the degree of risk and amount of regulatory scrutiny. This is both absurd and illegal, but at a "background" briefing in February 2006, an unnamed "EU official" noted that, "[i]t is nevertheless clear, beyond any doubt, that the EU will not have to modify its [biotechnology] legislation and authorization procedures."

Because uncertainty is anathema to investment in costly research and development, few companies are likely to risk the tens of millions of dollars in regulatory costs needed to pursue each new agbiotech product in Europe. Even worse, the less developed nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America, which once anticipated that agricultural and food biotechnology could provide them a brighter and more self-sufficient future, will continue to be shut out of the important European market by policymakers' callous obstructionism.

Henry I. Miller, a physician and fellow at the Hoover Institution, headed the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Biotechnology in 1989-1993. Gregory Conko is director of food safety policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Barron's selected their book, "The Frankenfood Myth," as one of the 25 Best Books of 2004.

28 February 2008

First GMO seed scandal in Africa: South Africa contaminates the continent

African Centre for Biosafety media release, 28 February 2008.

Seed maize from South Africa, claiming to be pure, has been found to be contaminated with genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The South African branch of US seed giant Pioneer Hi-Bred recently exported contaminated maize seeds to unsuspecting Kenyan farmers.

The maize seeds are contaminated with a genetically engineered variety-MON810- belonging to Monsanto that has not been approved in Kenya. GM maize MON 810 contains a novel gene that is considered unsafe and banned in several European countries.

The contamination of Kenyan seeds comes on the eve of a UN meeting that is tasked with developing internationally liability rules for genetically engineered products.

The contamination was detected by Greenpeace International, who, in cooperation with a coalition of several environmental and farmers' organisations in Kenya, commissioned tests of 19 different seed varieties that were bought in seed stores from key maize producing areas across the country. The tests, conducted by an independent European laboratory, revealed that Pioneer's seed maize PHB 30V53, sold in the Eldoret region of Kenya, is contaminated with MON 810 maize, a variant that is genetically engineered to be insect resistant.

"We call on all African national regulatory agencies to ban any import of seeds from companies that do not guarantee clean seeds that are free from genetic contamination," insists Mariam Mayet director of African Centre for Biosafety (ACB).

"Kenya now needs a strong biosafety bill that puts farmers' and consumer rights first, and we need mandatory international rules that ensure that polluters must pay for genetic contamination."

Some blame for this seed contamination scandal must also lie at the door of the South African government who has allowed the export of unapproved maize in the first place, she contends. "Maize is the most important staple crop in Kenya. Farmers and consumers in all countries, rich and poor, have the right to untainted, safe seeds and food."

Contact:

For further information, contact Mariam Mayet of the AFRICAN CENTRE FOR BIOSAFETY on 083 269 4309, Suite 3, 12 Clamart Street, Richmond, 2192 South Africa, or http://www.biosafetyafrica.net.

Issued on behalf of the African Centre for Biosafety by Michelle Nel on 011 615 4432 or 083 208 7902

Note:

From 12-19 March, in Cartagena, Colombia, governments will continue to negotiate international rules on liability for damages caused by GMOs. These negotiations take place under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Some developed countries such as the United States, Japan and New Zealand are opposing a global agreement on GMO liability. The continuing threats to developing country agriculture posed by GMO contamination, as evidenced by this latest contamination scandal, demonstrate the need for legally binding, global rules that ensure that polluters pay if anything goes wrong with genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

In February 2008 the French government decided to ban the cultivation of Monsanto's maize MON 810. The French ban is based on several environmental concerns, such as the impossibility to prevent the dissemination of GM maize into the environment and the possibility of toxic effects on non target organisms, such as earthworms. Besides France four EU member states (Austria, Greece, Hungary and Poland) have banned the commercial growing of GM maize MON 810 on the basis of environmental and health concerns.

Commment by GM Watch:

This begins the fulfilment of the threat made by Emmy Simmons, assistant administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, to Prof. Phil Bereano after the cameras stopped rolling on a vigorous debate they had on South Africa TV, "In four years, enough GE crops will have been planted in South Africa that the pollen will have contaminated the entire continent." As Bereano notes, "Under the specious claims of 'free choice' for farmers, the industry will deny consumers all choice about whether to eat engineered genomes." www.commondreams.org/views02/1119-03.htm

Biotech industry impunity fuels global GE contamination spread
Most of the contamination involved such staple crops as rice and maize, but also included soy, cotton, canola, papaya and fish

Greenpeace, 28 February 2008.

AMSTERDAM -- Biotech companies are acting with impunity as cases of genetic engineering (1) contamination continue on a global scale, a new report launched today reveals, GM Contamination Register Report 2007, by Greenpeace International and GeneWatch UK, details 39 new instances of crop contamination in 23 countries over the past year.

Most of the contamination involved such staple crops as rice and maize, but also included soy, cotton, canola, papaya and fish. Since 2005, the GM Contamination Register has recorded 216 contamination events in 57 countries since GE crops were first grown commercially on a large scale in 1996.

This year's annual report on the Register is released on the same day a GE scandal in Kenya is exposed as Kenyan environmental and farmers' organisations confront the government and United States seed giant Pioneer Hi-Bred with evidence of GE-contaminated maize seed in their country, and Greenpeace activists in the Netherlands protest shipments of illegal GE-rice varieties to Rotterdam.

"The contamination documented in the report is just the tip of the iceberg. Genetic polluters must pay. If a company contaminates our food and our environment, it must pay for the clean-up, compensate farmers, traders and consumers. We need international liability standards under the Biosafety Protocol to hold biotech companies to account (2)," Greenpeace International agriculture campaigner Dr Doreen Stabinsky stressed.

In Kenya, Greenpeace, in cooperation with local organisations, commissioned independent tests of maize seed varieties sold commercially. Pioneer's seed maize PHB 30V53 was found to contain MON 810, a GE variety which has no approval for planting in Kenya and is banned in several European countries (3).

In the Netherlands, rice shipped from the US to Rotterdam (4) was found to be contaminated with GE varieties not permitted for consumption outside of the US. Greenpeace Netherlands' genetic engineering campaigner Marietta Harjono says Rotterdam harbour is one of the world's biggest "GE contamination hotspots", due to its role as first port of entry for much of the GE contaminated foodstuffs that enter Europe from the US.

"Ongoing GE contamination in the world's major food crops, particularly in rice and maize, shows genetic engineering companies are failing to keep control of their artificial genes. Without decisive government action, the world's food and seed supplies will be under threat," Stabinsky warned.

Notes:

1) Genetic engineering (GE) is also known as genetic modification (GM) or genetically modified organisms (GMO).

2) From 12-19 March, in Cartagena, Colombia, governments will continue to negotiate international rules on liability for damages caused by genetically engineered organisms. These negotiations take place under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Some developed countries such as the United States, Japan and New Zealand are opposing a global agreement on GE liability. The continuing threats to developing country agriculture posed by GE contamination, as evidenced by these latest contamination scandals, demonstrate the need for legally binding, global rules that ensure that polluters pay if anything goes wrong with GE.

3) Greenpeace, in cooperation with several environmental and farmers' organisations in Kenya, commissioned tests on 13 different seed varieties bought in seed stores across the country. The tests, conducted by an independent European laboratory, revealed Pioneer's seed maize PHB 30V53, sold in the Eldoret region of Kenya, is contaminated with MON 810 maize, a genetically engineered variant that is insect resistant. The contaminated seeds were produced by the South African branch of Pioneer. The GE seeds have no approval for planting in Kenya. All other varieties from both local and international seed companies were not contaminated.

In February 2008, the French government decided to ban the cultivation of Monsanto's maize MON 810 due to environmental concerns. These include the impossibility to prevent the spread of GE maize, and the possibility of toxic effects on non-target organisms, such as earthworms. France, Austria, Greece, Hungary and Poland have banned the commercial growing of GE maize MON 810 on the basis of environmental and health concerns.

4) Dutch authorities found illegal rice varieties in two shipments. Bayer's rice variety LLRICE62 was found in a batch of long grain parboiled brown rice shipped by Riceland Foods and Bayer LLRICE601 was found in a batch of long grain milled rice from shipper Riviana Foods. One of the shipments has since been returned to the US, the other remains at the port.

Non-GM Breakthroughs Leave GM Behind

Science in Society #37 - Spring 2008.

Non-GM breakthroughs keep coming thick and fast for problems that GM proponents claim require GM, but GM solutions, if any, are years away

From GM Watch: www.gmwatch.org

Does the mention of allergen-free peanut, salt-resistant wheat, beta-carotene rich sweet potato, and virus-resistant cassava make you think of GM? If so, you've missed the great unpublished story of 2007 ‚ all the non-GM answers to precisely the problems (drought-resistance, salt-resistance, biofortification, etc.) that proponents claim only GM can solve.

While GM 'miracle' stories win vast amounts of column inches in the popular media, the non-GM stories are seldom reported. Without the GM lobby's exaggerated crisis narratives and silver bullet solutions, it seems there is no story. The biotech industry and its PR people, of course, are keen to keep it that way; particularly as the non-GM solutions are often way ahead of the work on GM. They also bring with them none of the uncertainties over environmental and health hazards that surround GM.

Thanks to the lack of success of GM 'solutions', non-GM success stories can end up being claimed as GM breakthroughs. This happened most recently when the UK government's retiring chief scientist, David King, claimed an important non-GM breakthrough in Africa as evidence of why we need to embrace GM [1]. This tells us why we need to stop being distracted by GM and support the non-GM solutions to crop production problems.

Many organic successes have been covered in detail in this and previous issues of SiS (see for example, Message from Andra Predesh: Return to organic cotton & avoid the Bt cotton trap, SiS 29; Scientists Find Organic Agriculture Can Feed the World and More, and FAO Promotes Organic Agriculture, SiS 36; Organic & Sustainable series, SiS 37) [2-5]. Here are other examples over the past year.

Zambia gets better harvests from non-GM maize

Although drought-prone Zambia is still facing problems, huge improvements have been reported in its maize harvests ‚ its main staple crop. Production is reported to have changed dramatically after President Levy Mwanawasa took over from Frederick Chiluba in 2001. He promoted innovations such as mixed farming and conservation farming. Mwanawasa rejected GM maize and encouraged the growing of non-GM maize, resulting in bumper harvests for the past three years [6].

Ironically, when the Zambian government rejected GM maize in 2002 [7] (Africa Unites Against GM to Opt for Self-sufficiency, SiS 16), there were calls from the US Ambassador to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization for its leaders to be tried ìfor the highest crimes against humanity in the highest courts of the worldî [8].

Non-GM crop science gets GBP13 million boost in the UK

UK crop scientists have been awarded a GBP13.3m boost in funding to carry out research aimed at delivering benefits for farmers and consumers. Researchers say they will not be producing GM crops. Prof. David Pink at University of Warwick, Coventry, whose team has been awarded GBP500 000 to identify genes in broccoli that will extend its shelf life and maintain its nutritional value longer, said [9], "We are not going down that [GM] route because GM is not acceptable at the moment, and not acceptable to our plant breeding partner]."

GM drought-tolerant maize way behind non-GM methods

In March 2007, the South African authorities gave Monsanto permission to conduct GM drought-tolerant maize field trials in South Africa. The African Centre for Biosafety released a report on the issue, pointing out that drought tolerance GM maize is at least 8-10 years away from commercial release, and points out that traditional breeding, marker assisted selection, and building up organic content of the soil are proven and immediately available methods of dealing with drought [10]. Nevertheless GM drought-tolerant crops are being used as PR tools by biotech lobbyists to promote acceptance of GM crops, to expand existing markets and develop new markets.

New non-GM drought-resistant maize in the Philippines

Philippine scientist Dr Antonio Mercado at the University of Philippines Los Banos has developed a new non-GM maize variety that was able to survive a drought for 29 days [11].

Indigenous rice better than GM-rice at dealing with stress

Navdanaya, a New Delhi-based NGO headed by Vandana Shiva, together with farmers from nine Indian states, has developed a register of over 2 000 indigenous rice varieties. They say GM rice strains are not only costly to cultivate but also perform poorly compared to native strains in fighting pests, diseases and environmental fluctuations. Several indigenous rice strains adopted by the Indian farmers can withstand extremes of climatic conditions, survive submergence for a fortnight and even withstand salinity with great success [12].

New Non-GM maize a body blow to grain borer

The larger grain borer is taking a beating from CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre) breeders in Kenya, as a new non-GM African maize withstands the onslaught of one of the most damaging pests. CIMMYT researchers found resistance to the borer in the Centre's germplasm bank, in maize seed originally from the Caribbean [13]. The bank holds 25 000 native maize races.

Non-GM process for allergy-free peanuts

A researcher at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University has developed a simple non-GM process to make allergen-free peanuts. An estimated one percent of children in the United States suffer from the allergy. The inventor, Dr Mohamed Ahmedna, is optimizing the process further to remove allergens from other foods [14].

While we do not have enough information on the process to judge any potential downsides, it is noteworthy that a seemingly straightforward solution has been found to a problem that GM proponents claim requires the use of GM.

Non-GM salt-tolerant wheat to bring life to dead land

Scientists at Australia's Molecular Plant Breeding CRC are using marker assisted breeding to identify salt-tolerant wheat varieties which could allow farmers to crop agricultural land lost to salinity across Australia's wheat belt. Some 67 percent of the dryland cropping area in Australia is affected by salinity, resulting in meagre yields [15].

Scientists developed non-GM drought-tolerant canola species

Scientists based in Victoria, Australia, have developed a new species of drought tolerant canola that could make up to 1.5 million hectares of drought-prone farmland in Australia more productive and profitable. Traditional breeding and molecular marker assisted selection were used [16].

The breakthrough comes after pro-GM lobbyists persuaded the Australian states of Victoria and New South Wales to lift their moratorium on GM plantings, partly based on claims that GM would provide drought tolerant crops. However, Robert Horsch, Monsanto's vice president, has admitted that such crops are actually not so easy to develop, while Christopher Horner, another Monsanto spokesperson, has admitted such GM crops are years away from commercial production [17].

Gates Foundation supports non-GM biofortified sweet potato in Africa

Biofortification alliance HarvestPlus has received a US$ 6 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to introduce a nutritionally improved orange sweet potato into the diets of the undernourished in East Africa. The orange sweet potato is rich in beta-carotene, an essential building block of vitamin A, which helps to prevent blindness [18].

According to a BBC report, only a "relatively small" amount of HarvestPlus's work in biofortification involves GM. Harvest Plus's Bonnie McClafferty said [19], "We've been able to experience great success in actually finding varieties to do conventional plant breeding with." Harvest Plus has recently announced the discovery of a new non-GM method of improving the vitamin A precursor content of maize [20].

Links to these and other non-GM success stories at: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8658, and http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7105

A fully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS members' website. Details here http://www.i-sis.org.uk/membership.php

An electronic version of this report, or any other ISIS report, with full references, can be sent to you via e-mail for a donation of GBP3.50. Please e-mail the title of the report to: report@i-sis.org.uk

The Philippines: NFA urged to hold distribution of rice recently shipped from US

GMANews.TV, 28 February 2008.

Subic Bay, Philippines - Environmental activist group Greenpeace is urging Philippine authorities to hold the distribution to the public of the rice shipped recently from the US until the grains are proven uncontaminated with genetically modified rice.

Greenpeace on Thursday said that the rice shipment, now being offloaded at a Subic Bay port, might be contaminated with genetically modified grains not yet proven to be safe for human consumption.

"The National Food Authority (NFA) must quarantine this shipment and run stringent tests based on European Union protocols before the rice is distributed to the public," said Daniel M. Ocampo, genetic engineering campaigner of Greenpeace Southeast Asia.

He said that the US and Philippine genetically modified organism testing procedures are unreliable as they require only a GMO test sample of 100 grams from 50,000 tons - one grain out of every 500 million grains.

In contrast, the EU procedure requires a minimum of 2.5-kilogram sample for testing, making it easier to detect the presence of GMO grains, Ocampo said.

Greenpeace said that from 2007 to 2008, 23 rice shipments from the US, obviously cleared by American authorities, were barred in the EU for GMO contamination.

In 2006, the group also revealed the presence of GMO-contaminated rice (Bayer's herbicide resistant LL601) from the US in supermarkets in Manila.

According to Ocampo, the finding even prompted the NFA to issue an order requiring imported rice to be free from GMOs. It also stopped the importation of the staple from the US since late 2006.

Ocampo also cited that Purefeeds, the distributor of American GMO-contaminated rice, had to recall the remaining stocks from store shelves and replaced it with rice from Thailand.

Bayer, the developer of GMO rice varieties that contaminated the US rice supply, is facing lawsuits from farmers and US rice traders whose combined losses are estimated to hit US$ 1.2 billion.

"Importing rice from the US exposes Filipinos to the inherent risks of GMOs on human health and threatens our staple food with genetic contamination," Ocampo said. - GMANews.TV

Ireland: Food Safety Authority

Irish Farmers Journal, 28 February 2008.

Letter to the editor:

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) would like to clarify that the letter by Grace Maher of the Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association (February 25) incorrectly stated that Dr Con O'Rourke is employed by the FSAI. Dr O'Rourke is an independent plant scientist who previously worked with An Teagasc. He has not held any position with FSAI.

Jane Ryder
Press and PR Officer
Food Safety Authority of Ireland

Australia: Stock Journal poll: SA farmers say keep GM ban

North Queensland Register, 28 February 2008. By Paula Thompson.

Most of South Australia's graingrowers can see economic benefits from having access to genetically-modified crops but the majority would not support the moratorium on growing them lifted.

This is the result of a Rural Press Marketing Survey done exclusively for the Stock Journal.

Only 36pc of respondents supported the moratorium being lifted, with the strongest support coming from the Mid North and Yorke Peninsula. More than 54pc said they did not support lifting the ban.

But more than half of respondents believed having access to GM crops would offer economic benefits, and 49pc believed there would be agronomic benefits.

More than a third of those surveyed said they would grow them if given the choice but 49pc said they would not. More than 70pc of South East respondents said they would not grow GM crops.

More than half of the survey respondents believed growing GM crops would destroy the State's "clean, green" image, with 53pc thinking the east/west divide between States growing GMs and those resisting adoption of the technology would affect Australia's export markets in the long term.

There was a significant undecided vote in the survey, with 21pc unsure about whether there would be any economic benefits.

South Australian Farmers Federation grains council chairman, Peter Treloar, says a number of growers are concerned about market acceptance of GMs.

"This is what I would read into the survey results: growers are not yet convinced that consumers have accepted GM products," he says.

"The results suggest growers generally can see agronomic, environmental and economic benefits in growing GMs - but they still need to have their fears allayed in regard to consumer sentiment."

Mr Treloar says the federation wants the GM moratorium lifted in SA.

"The grains council has a policy looking to give growers choice, so given that we will be looking to demonstrate the benefits of lifting the moratorium to the government in the future," he says.

Australia: WA GM crop trial axed

North Queensland Register, 28 February 2008. By Colin Beetles.

[Western Australia's] first broadacre trial of genetically modified (GM) canola has been called off after seed companies refused to supply the seed to WA for the critical research project.

The 2.5ha trial was to be held at the Esperance Downs Research Station this season.

It was to be co-ordinated by the South-East Premium Wheat Growers Association (SEPWA) with the science co-ordinated by Kalyx Agriculture director, Peter Burgess.

It was intended that a small plot variety evaluation and the small plot agronomy trials would be used in conjunction with large-scale demonstration blocks to measure the performance of several different GM varieties compared to current grains.

However, the entire project was put on hold last week because of the unavailability of GM seed.

An application for a smaller variety-style trial was submitted by SEPWA to the WA Government last week.

The trial work, and subsequent information it will provide on the performance of GMs under local conditions, is considered essential to help counter the volume of campaigning from both pro-GM and anti-GM crusaders.

SEPWA president, Chris Reichstein, says he is expecting an answer for a new application in the next fortnight.

Mr Reichstein says the application to grow GM canola on a smaller trial site would make it easier to manage the research project in WA's current political climate.

He says a new application is needed because the GM seed companies have gone cold on supplying seed for the original broadacre trial, but this is not a big setback.

Mr Reichstein says SEPWA is now hoping the new GM trial will go ahead this season with some support from the seed companies.

– From Farm Weekly, WA's market leading weekly farming news package.

Australia: Victoria gets ready to lift GM crop ban

Crikey, 28 February 2008. By Katherine Wilson.

Victoria's ban on genetically modified (GM) food crops ends tomorrow ó and following widespread media exposure of the putative health and environmental hazards of GM food, chief scientist Gustav Nossal will be joined by three scientists for a media conference to brief journalists on "Which concerns [about GM food crops] are the most justified? Which risks can be managed and which can't?".

Yet tomorrow's briefing is "vested interests masquerading as public interest science," claims Greenpeace spokesperson Louise Sales. Comprising scientists who campaigned in support of lifting the bans, it was organised by the Australian Science Media Centre (AusSMC), which claims itself "free of bias". But absent are any independent scientists who warn of dangers of GM food, like biochemist and nutritionist Dr Rosemary Stanton OAM, or medical scientist Professor Stephen Leeder, or epidemiologist Dr Judy Carman, or crop research scientist Dr Maartan Stapper. There are many others.

Media Manager Lyndal Gully told Crikey in an email:

"There was no attempt to line up a panel with a particular GM viewpoint ... [but] if scientists on the panel are more likely to end up arguing with each other rather than answering journalists' questions, then there is a good chance that the science (that either side is trying to communicate) will be lost in the story."

Gene Ethics director Bob Phelps said the selected scientists "are speaking way outside their area of scientific expertise." But AusSMC CEO Susannah Eliot said the panel was chosen because "they have done the research and have the knowledge-base, and they are happy to be grilled by the media."

One panellist, Dr TJ Higgins, is CSIRO's co-inventor of the ill-fated GM field pea, abandoned because it caused lung-damage when fed to mice. His published claims that "there isn't a single piece of evidence that [GM food is] any less safe than conventional food" reportedly prompted the ire of environmental scientist Dr Brian John, who branded these claims "a lie." Experimental biologist Dr Arpad Puzstai also said "Most of Dr Higgins' comments are factually incorrect ... the final refuge of the incompetent."

Critics of second panelist Dr Chris Preston claim his published reviews ignore negative studies. Professor Rainer Mosenthin reportedly said Preston's methods should be disregarded as they "have limited scientific value".

And third panelist Professor Rick Roush reportedly failed to disclose his research funding by GM companies. Allegedly as a result, Science journal revised its disclosure policy, as it is recognised that industry-funded research tends to be much more industry-favourable than independent research.

Accusations don't amount to guilt ó and many anti-GM-food scientists also face public mud-slinging (including from some on this panel). This is the problem, says AusSMC's CEO Susannah Eliot. "The issue is so polarised it gets tricky to select a panel. Many scientists are happy to discuss the issues privately but aren't willing to speak publicly because they don't want to be labelled as pro- or anti-GM."

Disclosure: Katherine Wilson's family owns biotechnology shares, but she wrote a submission in support of a moratorium on GM food crops.

27 February 2008

USA: Multiple-Resistance Weeds: Coming to a Field near You?

Western Farmer Stockman, February 27 2008. By Mike Wilson mwilson@farmprogress.com.

Glyphosate-resistant weeds are on the rise says Kevin Bradley, weed scientist at University of Missouri, speaking at a Bayer CropScience meeting in Nashville this week.

Of even greater concern is that some weeds are becoming resistant to several modes of herbicide action à not just glyphosate.

"Glyphosate resistance is a concern and we want farmers to change their ways," says Bradley. "I am probably equally scared about multiple resistance as just glyphosate resistance. Some waterhemp is now resistant to glyphosate, ALS and PPO-inhibiting herbicides.

"We're trying to scare people to death in order to change their ways, but the shock value is going away," he says.

Using different modes of action will lessen the impact of resistant weeds. But it's an uphill battle to get farmers to change their ways says Bradley. For one thing, the best systems cost twice the cost of a typical 2X glyphosate application.

Liberty Link soybeans is one way to battle resistance, he says. And we may have dicamba-resistant soybeans by 2013, which would add another weapon in the weed arsenal.

Resistance happens within the natural population of weeds. "What we do wrong is spray glyphosate over and over and allow that biotype to survive until sooner or later, you have a patch of resistant weeds among the patch of killed weeds," says Bradley. "Then those weeds multiply."

In Missouri, a recent retailer survey revealed that 51,000 acres may be suffering from glyphosate resistance.

Where we're headed is more Roundup Ready acres whether we want it or not, he says. Most seed companies say in the next three to five years we will have 80% Roundup Ready corn-Roundup Ready soybean rotations.

"If we get into these rotations, we're going to be in trouble," he says. "We're already 90% roundup ready soybeans. These continuous glyphosate systems are what we're worried about."

The list of resistant weeds includes marestail, common ragweed, giant ragweed, amaranth, waterhemp, hairy fleabane, Italian ryegrass and rigid ryegrass, he says. And most of it is in the eastern Corn Belt as well as the mid-south. You can get more information at www.weedscience.com. You can also learn more about glyphosate resistant weeds at: www.glyphosateweedscrops.org.

Activists promise a GM-Free India

Press Release, Coalition for GM Free India

Hyderabad, February 27, 2008: Activists from fourteen states of India, consisting of farmers' organizations, NGOs, consumer groups and women's federations have pledged to keep India free of Genetically Modified foods and crops. Concluding a two-day national meeting (on February 25th and 26th 2008)which reviewed the available evidence on GM technology and its ramifications, the Coalition for GM-Free India today resolved to intensify the campaign to educate, create awareness and build public opinion against the hazardous implications of the technology.

"Last year, 2000 villages declared themselves GM Free where farmers took an informed decision to protect themselves against the onslaught of this imprecise corporate science. This year, another 2000 villages are expected to declare themselves GM-Free, spearheading a nation-wide resistance against GM crops", said Devinder Sharma, Coalition for GM-Free India.

The Coalition represents lakhs of farmers and consumers across the country. Among the important strategy decisions that emerged, the Coalition has decided to work towards making GM-Free India a political issue considering the forthcoming general elections.

States like Orissa, Kerala and Uttarakhand have already declared themselves GM-Free. In the days to come, more and more states are expected to follow suit.

Pointing out that the Government of India is acting irresponsibly and bowing before the money power of multinational biotech industry, Ms Janani of Orissa Nari Samaj said, "Majority of the countries in the world have rejected GM in their farming and they have done so after considering all options. The Government of India is clearly putting the interests of corporations before the interests of farmers". Orissa Nari Samaj fears that the expansion of cultivable area under GM crops will destroy the available biodiversity thereby threatening the nation's food security.

Representatives of the Coalition also denounced the hype about Bt Cotton contributing to spectacular yield increases in Indian cotton and clarified that in several states, the yield figures are actually showing unsteady trends and that in states like Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, some of their record yields were obtained from non-Bt Cotton and not Bt Cotton. In a state like Gujarat, increase in yields is attributed to good monsoons and increase in irrigation by around 33% in the past five years, amongst other reasons, by the state government of Gujarat.

Participating in the Press Conference were representatives of fourteen states à Sri Devinder Sharma from Delhi; Dr Nammalvar and Sri Selvam from Tamil Nadu, Sri Utkarsh Sinha from Uttar Pradesh, Ms Usha, Kerala; Mr Krishna Prasad from Karnataka; Mr Hartej Singh Mehta of Punjab, Sri Chandan Mukherjee, West Bengal; Mr Datta Patil, Maharashtra; Mr Sunil Kumar, Bihar; Mr Girija Nandan Upadhyay, Jharkhand; Mr Vijay Bhadu, Rajasthan; Mr Jagannath Chatterjee from Orissa; Sri Nilesh Desai from Madhya Pradesh and Dr Ramanjaneyulu/Ms Kavitha Kuruganti from Andhra Pradesh.

For more information, contact:
Devinder Sharma at 098-113-01857
Kavitha Kuruganti at 093-930-01550

After corn, Asia may seek GMO soy as costs rise

Reuters, 27 February 2008. By Nao Nakanishi.

HONG KONG (Reuters) - South Korea and Japan could soon begin buying genetically modified soy beans for use in the food chain as the growing price premium on non-GMO crops forces more consumers to compromise on safety concerns, industry sources say.

On Tuesday, South Korean starch and sweetener makers said they had bought U.S. GMO corn for use in foodstuffs for the first time. U.S. traders said there were signs that Japanese importers could soon do the same, saving $50 a ton versus non-GMO corn.

And that premium could grow as China, one of the last major producers of non-GMO soy and corn, looks set to stop grain exports this year to ensure it has sufficient stocks to feed its people and to keep a lid on quickening food inflation.

At the same time demand for non-GMO products has risen in line with a preference among the health-conscious middle class for more tofu or soymilk manufactured from non-GMO soybeans.

"There's a shortage of non-GMO products in Korea, Japan and Europe," said Chuk Ng, managing director of Naturz Organics (Dalian) Co, an exporter of organic food.

"The world market for non-GMO product is very limited. But China has been a strong supplier. Now the government does not want to allow exports."

Traders and officials say premiums for non-GMO corn from the United States have more than trebled from $10-$15 a ton a year ago, when China was exporting nearly 5 million tons a year.

In the soy market, premiums for contracting farmers for conventional soy doubled to $3 a bushel for the 2008 crop to be planted in the United States or Canada in a few months.

Traders and industry officials say soy suppliers are struggling to execute even signed contracts following Beijing's moves on grains exports.

"All of us are now in talks about the 2008 soy crop. The prempremiums have jumped, doubled," said another trade in Tokyo.

"There will be those that can't afford it. It is also becoming difficult to come by non-GMO soy, almost impossible."

Though China is the world's top soy importer, its exports of non-GMO soy totaled 456,469 tons last year, up 20.4 percent. It also sells products, like corn flour, manufactured from non-GMO domestic crops.

Until recently, China looked to continue small exports of its conventional crops to cash in on the niche premium market, even as its bulk grains imports grow.

Now, Beijing is set to stop grains exports altogether, including soy, as it struggles with soaring vegetable oils prices that helped lift China's inflation to an 11-year high by January.

"It is becoming clear you can no longer acquire non-GMO products unless you contract farmers," said Nobuyuki Chino, president of grain trader Unipac Grain Ltd in Tokyo.

He said the South Korean manufacturers were forced to switch after nobody offered non-GMO corn at its tenders in January.

For the moment, the soy industry remains resistant, but economics may yet overcome consumer concerns. "We don't have any plans to import GMO soybean for food use anytime soon because consumers are obviously worried about GMO products," said Kang Hyung-mo, manager at state-run importer Agricultural and Fishery Marketing Corporation.

(Reporting by Nao Nakanishi and Angela Moon in Hong Kong; Editing by Jonathan Leff)

UK: Letter to The Guardian from Clare Oxborrow

Your report (GM crop trial locations may be hidden from public, 16 February) neglected to mention that our Department for Environment actually made it easier for BASF to carry out its GM potato trials last year. It allowed the trial to go ahead before the potatoes had been tested as safe for health, something BASF said would be too expensive.

Despite this helping hand, a second trial, approved for a farm in Hedon, near Hull, failed to go ahead last year because of justified concerns raised by local farmers, local authorities and the public about the impact on their economy and environment.

It's not activism that's preventing GM crops taking hold in the UK but a complete failure by the industry to make a convincing case for why we need them. GM crops have lead to a massive increase in pesticide use and have failed to increase yields or tackle hunger and poverty. The Government should remember that it represents the British public, not the GM industry. As such it should back green farming systems, such as organic, which are already delivering for the environment and jobs and have broad public support.

Clare Oxborrow
GM Campaigner
Friends of the Earth

UK: Letter to The Guardian from Pete Riley

Ian Sample (GM crop trial locations may be hidden from public, 16 February) appears to have been swept along with the pro GM propaganda he was offered by the biotech industry to the point where his article became inconsistent.

To back up industry calls for keeping GM test site location secret, he wrote "Elsewhere in Europe, fields are not pinpointed so clearly, with companies giving only the region in which the trials will take place, or submitting details to a tightly-control-led public register".

However, earlier in the article he claimed that "77% The percentage of Monsanto's crop trials in France that were attacked by campaigners" (or was the figure 65% as stated in the body of the article further down the page?).

From this one could draw the conclusion that not pinpointing the field where the trials are being held in France has failed to stop such actions.

Hiding GM sites in the UK will not be the answer because neighbours will have to be informed, as the presence of the trial could impact on their business through cross pollination, and word will get out. The reason for farmers and beekeepers being concerned about contamination is that people are looking for food without GM presence and have been supported by all the major supermarkets and hundreds of smaller businesses in that desire since the late 1990s. Widespread cultivation of GM crops would make keeping to such standards much more difficult if not impossible.

The reason we don't have GM crops growing commercially growing in the UK is not because of activists taking direct action but because they were found to be harmful to farmland wildlife or they were withdrawn by the company which developed them (in the case of GM fodder maize). In the whole of the EU, the area of commercial GM planting amounted to just 0.23% of farmland last year - a significant proportion of which was in Spain. It's not just the UK that does not like GM crops.

Rather than writing a major article on keeping GM test sites secret, one is left wondering why Ian Sample did not produce a piece looking at why the major seed corporations have got themselves stuck in a deeply unpopular GM cul-de-sac (which has not produced consistent yield improvement in any crop) and how UK science should drop its obsession with the GM solution in farming to research options that meet all the demands being placed on agriculture of producing safe food with the minimal environmental footprint.

Yours sincerely,
Pete Riley
GM Freeze

USA: Hawaii consumers have right to know if their food is GE

Star Bulletin, Legislative Matters. Feb 27 2008. By Mike Gabbard.

[Mike Gabbard represents state Senate District 19 in Hawaii]

Eighty-five percent of Hawaii residents think it's important that genetically engineered fruit be labeled. That was the shocking statistic that I read in a study by Sabry Shehata, an agricultural economics professor at the University of Hawaii-Hilo.

If you're not familiar, genetic engineering, producing what are known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is a relatively new technology whereby scientists take the genetic material of one organism -- the basic blueprint or building blocks of life -- and insert it into the genome of another, different species of plant or animal. According to the latest information available, approximately 70 percent of the processed foods on store shelves contain GE ingredients.

After meeting with Shehata, I was convinced that we needed to do something at the state Legislature to carry out the people's will. I researched and found study after study on the mainland that also showed that people want GE foods to be labeled.

You might be surprised to learn that the U.S. government doesn't require these foods to be labeled. In 2005, Alaska became the first state to require mandatory labeling of GE foods when they passed a law to label GE fish.

The main thing that hit me about this issue is that we live in a democracy where people have the right to know what we put in our bodies. We should be able to choose whether we want to eat GE fruit or not. So I worked with organic farmers and several local and national consumer advocacy groups and introduced Senate Bill 3232, that requires all GE whole foods sold in the state to be labeled. By whole foods, I'm referring to all GE crops that are in their raw or natural state. Right now, the bill would apply to whole foods such as papaya, sweet corn, squash, and soybeans. But in the near future, it might also include tomatoes, potatoes and strawberries, which have been tested by the biotech companies.

At the national level, the labeling of GE food has become an issue in the presidential campaign. Both leading Democratic candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, are on record in support of labeling. The nations of the European Union, Japan, China, Australia and New Zealand are some of the countries that have mandatory labeling of foods with GE ingredients.

The other day, someone asked if the reason that I introduced SB 3232 is because I have something against GE foods and biotech in general. The answer is no! As Americans and consumers, we have a right to information and labeling is the only way to provide that option. Some of us want to eat organics, kosher and halal food while others do their best to stay away from those high in fat. Many of us have allergies which force us to be particularly careful with our food options.

I've been told by many in the biotech industry that putting a label on their foods will give the public a negative impression of their products. This is not true. Actually, the label doesn't give people a negative impression; it simply gives them a choice. The label itself is neutral.

A good example is organics. You can go into every store in the country and you'll find labels on hundreds of organic food products. If you ask most people, they don't have a negative impression of organics. So my question is, why can't biotech companies be required to follow the organic industry's lead?

I've been told that people in Hawaii aren't educated enough to make an informed decision if GE foods were to be labeled. This is another way of saying that the people of Hawaii are stupid and that they don't deserve a choice. Biotech companies should step up to the plate and realize that it's their responsibility to convince us that their products should be chosen over their organic or conventional counterparts. Biotech companies have the financial resources and know-how to compete as equals in the marketplace. If GE foods are healthier and taste better, it's obvious that people will buy them.

I've also introduced a second bill, SB 3233, directed at giving people more information on what's happening on our lands. The bill sets up a notification process for farmers, requiring those producing and researching GE crops to report the locations of their farms and research sites to the Department of Agriculture. This information would be posted on the DOA Web site and would be readily available to the public.

For several decades, it's been a common practice of farmers to consult with their neighbors, letting them know what they're planting in order to protect the purity of their seed. This legislation uses the latest technology to make it easier for that communication to take place. Additionally, knowing the location of GE test plots is of particular concern to organic and conventional farmers worried about the potential for GE contamination of their crops. Their concern is understandable given the fact that more than 5,000 field tests of GE crops have been authorized in Hawaii. This is simply a "good neighbor" bill allowing people to know if a company is testing GE crops next door.

SB 3232 and SB 3233 are really about democracy and letting the public know that our political leaders are listening to them. Shehata's study and many others conducted on the mainland have made it clear that people want GE foods to be labeled. People also want to know what's happening in our environment. It's the Legislature's responsibility to do what's in the people's best interests and to give them what they want. Let's pass SB 3232 and SB 3233 into law!

Mike Gabbard represents state Senate District 19 (Waikele, Village Park, Royal Kunia, Makakilo, Kapolei, Kalaeloa, Honokai Hale, and portions of Waipahu and Ko Olina).

26 February 2008

Japan: No! GMO Request at Australian Embassy

Consumers Union of Japan, February 26 2008.

Keisuke Amagasa, Namiko Ono and other consumer activists visited the Australian Embassy in Tokyo on February 21, 2008 to deliver Japanese consumers' request regarding genetically modified (GM) foods.

They asked the Australian government, on a national level, to firmly maintain a strict GM-free policy. Australia has such a valuable ecosystem, which is unparalleled in the world, so GM crops are a real threat to the country's unique biodiversity. They expressed the request that GM crops should be eliminated, and not accepted.

They also strongly requested that Australia makes sure not to let GM canola to be cultivated now or in the future.

Read the letter of request to Minister for Agriculture, Hon. Tony Burke (pdf):
'Please Stop GM Canola Cultivation in Australia'
http://cujtokyo.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/080219-gmo-appeal-australia3.pdf

The world according to Monsanto

GM Watch, 26 February 2008.

INTRO: Coming soon... an explosive documentary about Monsanto by French journalist, Marie-Monique Robin.

LE MONDE SELON MONSANTO (THE WORLD ACCORDING TO MONSANTO) is due to be broadcast on the Franco-German TV channel ARTE on 11th March (we think at 2100 hrs, French time).

Filmed in North America, Europe and Asia, it looks at Monsanto's record since its inception in 1901, taking in PCBs, Agent Orange, rBGH, GMOs and the rest of the company's extraordinary toxic legacy.

There's lots of information about the film in French - plus some images and an extract - on the ARTE website: http://www.arte.tv/lemondeselonmonsanto

Below, Claire Robinson has translated into English some of the info from the ARTE site (item 2).

The film's also due to run on twelve other TV channels in different European countries, and seems to have already gone out on the Swiss Channel TSR.

There's also a book coming out of the same title, which looks like it'll be available in bookshops in France from the 6 March, and also via Amazon. http://www.arte.tv/fr/connaissance-decouverte/LemondeselonMonsanto/Le-livre/1912812.html

French bookshops are said to have been getting a lot of interest, but it's not clear yet when either the book or the film will be available in languages other than French. However, the film seems to contain a lot of material from interviews conducted in English with scientists, farmers, regulators, lawyers etc. in the USA, Canada, Britain, and India, which are subtitled in French, so even the French version of the film shouldn't be too hard to follow for English speakers, assuming it becomes available on dvd or online.

There's a great trailer and some other info in English here:
http://www.dailymotion.com/visited-week/tag/test/video/x4da65_le-monde-selon-monsanto-arte-mardi_politics (quotes from this in item 1 below)

The film's in-depth investigation into Monsanto apparently took over three years. And we know just how carefully the film and book have been researched because the director, Marie-Monique Robin, came and spent a good part of a day with GM Watch checking through the minutiae of the evidence for Monsanto's online PR attacks on scientific critics like Dr. Ignacio Chapela.

Incidentally, those interviewed in the film include Kirk J. Azevedo - a former Monsanto employee whose career came to a grinding halt because of his concern at the practices of his employer who was allowing test plot material from genetically engineered cotton seed to enter the food supply without proper testing.

Quotes from the film:

Quotes taken from the trailer at http://www.dailymotion.com/visited-week/tag/test/video/x4da65_le-monde-selon-monsanto-arte-mardi_politics

[Monsanto ad]: Monsanto: Where creative chemistry works wonders for you.

[Canadian Government scientist addressing Senate Agriculture and Forestry Committee, Ottawa]: I wonder which truth I will tell: the one I know, or the one the minister instructed me to tell.

[Jeremy Rifkin]: I have never seen a situation where one company could have so much overwhelming influence at the highest levels of regulatory decision-making as Monsanto with its GM food policy in the government.

[former FDA scientist involved in rBGH regulation]: One day I was escorted to the door and that was it, I was done.

[Health Canada scientist - man]: We were dismissed for disobedience.

[Health Canada scientist - woman]: They fired us.

[Dr Arpad Pusztai]: Our job was to look at what will happen if you are including these potatoes in the diet of the rat... It started to recognize the GM potatoes as alien.

[Scientist]: "The animal feeding studies provided some reassurance that no major changes occurred." I want 100% reassurance, not just "some".

[Lawyer?]: I have to say, we would never trust a company like Monsanto to tell the truth about a pollution problem or a product.

[Vandana Shiva]: It's always said genetic engineering is the way to get to patenting. But patenting is the real aim.

[Monsanto ad for Roundup]: One shot is all it takes for weeds. Roundup.

[US farmer/agribiz rep in field of GM soya]: I've got a soybean in my hand, I can eat this soybean, it's very safe, very safe.

[Resident of Anniston, community poisoned by Monsanto plant]: This is Snow Creek. The plant was poisoning it and they never told anybody. They told the state, but the state didn't tell anybody.

[Another man talking about Anniston]: Their neighbors in Anniston were not told about the poisoning because they [Monsanto] didn't "want to lose one dollar" [of business].

[Vandana]: We will depend on them for every seed we grow, every crop we grow, and if they control seed they control food, they know it. It's strategic. It's more powerful than bombs, it's more powerful than guns.

[Man on dairy farm - from Monsanto advertisement?]: As you know, Posilac from Monsanto is the first and only BST product to be approved by the FDA for your use.

[Another man]: You have to look at the most important thing and that is, there's pus in the milk.

[Lawyer Steve Druker]: The FDA has been lying to the world since 1992.

[unnamed woman]: We're dealing with something that is untouchable, that is so big, so powerful.

[Indian man]: With GM, biotechnology, they are making farmers completely dependent on market forces.

[Another man in India]: In 6 months, we've had 680 suicides. It's a disaster.

[American]: You can't defend yourself against these people. They've created an industry that serves no other purpose than to wreck farmers' lives. Of course, [farmers are] afraid.

The world according to Monsanto

Director: Marie-Monique Robin
Author: Marie-Monique Robin
Producer: IMAGE AND COMPANY

Following an intensive investigation conducted over three years in North America and southern Europe and Asia, this film reveals Monsanto's project for world-domination, which threatens the food security of the world and the ecological balance of the planet.

"THE WORLD ACCORDING TO MONSANTO" investigates the American multinational Monsanto, the world leader in biotechnology and one of the most controversial companies of the industrial age.

Ninety percent of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) grown today on the planet, such as soybeans, canola, corn, and cotton, belong to it and in future it aims to control the entire food supply.

Monsanto's GMOs have invaded the world and never has any agro-industrial application aroused as much passion and controversy. Why? What are the issues around GMOs? The risks and benefits for mankind?

Drawing on unpublished documents and the testimony of scientists, representatives of civil society, victims, lawyers, politicians, representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration, and conducting investigations on the ground among farmers in India, Mexico, Paraguay, the director Marie-Monique Robin - winner of the prestigious Albert Londres prize - has patiently assembled the pieces of a large economic puzzle.

Following an intensive investigation conducted over three years in North America and southern Europe and Asia, the film depicts the genesis of an industrial empire and shows how [Monsanto] became one of the foremost seed-suppliers in the world. It shows how, behind the clean green image portrayed in its advertising campaigns, is hidden a project for world-domination that threatens both global food security and also the ecological balance of the planet.

UK: The GM debate is not about scientists versus anti-capitalists
Campaigners who oppose GM food aren't vandals - they are acting in the public interest, says Peter Melchett

The Guardian, February 26 2008. By Peter Melchett.

Your article about the GM industry's lobbying to make its crop trial locations secret, said that there are "fears that anti-GM campaigners are winning the battle over the controversial technology" (GM crop trial locations may be hidden from public, February 16).

But your story characterises two sides of the battle exactly as pro-GM campaigners would wish. Those who oppose GM food are described as "protesters" engaged in "vandalism". In contrast, commercial interests promoting GM are described neutrally as the "GM industry".

This, and your special inside report (Biotech firm mans barricades as campaigners vow to stop trials, February 16), implies these pro-GM campaigners are motivated by a heady mix of scientific integrity and altruism. You report that the old industry claims of GM feeding the world are now extended to GM being "at least part of the solution to food inflation, food security and even global warming". The fact that these multinational chemical companies have been making these claims - that the next GM crop trial will help cure disease or feed the world by increasing yields - for at least 20 years, without this once actually happening, should induce a degree of scepticism.

The main thrust of your account of the GM industry's views - that those opposed to GM crops in Europe are part of a general anti-capitalist conspiracy - is also an old chestnut. In the 1990s Monsanto dismissed opposition to GM in Europe because they thought it came from a small minority of anti-science and anti-big business activists. In fact those early environmental concerns turned out to be shared by the vast majority of Europe's citizens. Why? Because concerns about growing and eating GM food are justified by both experience and scientific research.

Another golden oldie is the threat from pro-GM campaigners that Britain must embrace GM or lose jobs. The article says that "fears of vandalism have forced many companies to shift their crop trials abroad", without asking whether the rejection of GM food by our citizens might have had something to do with it. In fact, opposition to GM is growing throughout the EU, especially in France and Germany, as the article itself notes.

GM trials pose a risk to the environment and to farmers growing similar non-GM and organic crops. In 1999, 28 Greenpeace volunteers, of whom I was one, removed a GM maize crop in Norfolk. You describe this as a "protest", and that is exactly what the prosecution in our subsequent criminal trial tried, and failed, to prove. The jury found that what we did was legally remove a crop that threatened the integrity of other nearby crops, acting in the public interest. The fear of many farmers is that, once released into the environment, GM crops will spread their traits to related native plants. Once released, they can never be recalled.

The reckless abandon with which GM companies want to spread this poorly understood, inherently uncertain and potentially very dangerous technology terrifies me, and the public are right to continue to reject it.

Peter Melchett is an organic farmer and policy director of the Soil Association.
pmelchett@soilassociation.org

USA: Taking aim at GMOs
Urged by customers who feel that genetically modified organisms have negative effects on food, some local grocers are taking items containing them off their shelves

Mail Tribune, 26 February 2008. By John Darling.

Believing that genetically engineered foods are untested for health effects on humans, the Ashland Food Co-op has launched a program to get all such products off its shelves this year ó and other area markets, including Shop N Kart and Food For Less, say they are steadily increasing offerings of GMO-free food.

Most genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are found in corn, soy, canola, cottonseed products and Hawaiian papaya, which means they're in a huge array of foods ó estimates range up to 70 percent in processed food ó says Co-op Outreach and Owner Services Manager Annie Hoy, who teaches classes on non-GMO shopping.

"They're made in a lab in ways that nature doesn't operate. It's an imprecise science. It may look, act and taste like corn, but it isn't corn," says Hoy, noting that science recognizes no species barriers, and will combine genes from fish and strawberries in order to extract a trait, such as long shelf life, color or ability to resist pesticides.

What most aggravates shoppers, she says, is that GMO foods are not required to be labeled as such, so it's difficult to screen them out of your diet. "I try to avoid GMO and I would feel a lot more secure if it were better labeled," says Kelly Cruser of Ashland, who is educated as a zoologist and has worked as an orthodontist. "It's in two-thirds of everything in grocery stores now and there are many important likely health consequences and very few studies to verify GMOs are safe."

The ability to fine tune her shopping skills required study ó and Cruser has learned which corn and tomatoes have been genetically modified. She buys blue corn chips (only yellow corn has undergone GMO) and Roma tomatoes, which are not among the engineered species.

On a walking tour of the Ashland Food Co-op, Hoy points out that, while GMO foods evade labeling, foods labeled non-GMO, such as milk from Umpqua Dairy in Roseburg, are required to carry a disclaimer saying the FDA has determined that "no test can distinguish" between the milk of treated and untreated cows. Many popular ice creams and yogurts, long considered healthful, will not make the cut at the co-op, because they don't meet the standard of being free from bovine growth hormone, which is genetically engineered, says Rainbo O'Connor, chairwoman of the store's Product Safety Committee.

O'Connor had her management team read "Seeds of Deception; Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating," by Jeffery M. Smith ó and recently pulled all canola oil out of the store's deli and substituted organic olive, grape seed and sunflower oil. Because crops aren't grown in plastic bubbles, but get their pollen blown around by the wind, "it's getting increasingly hard to say something has no GMOs, but a good yardstick is "shop organic," she says, adding that anything that is certified organic, by definition, means it's GMO-free.

Terry Johnson, manager of Food For Less organic food department, Medford, says she's increasing her line of organic and non-GMO foods.

"I wish they'd make them label the GMO," she says.

Johnson says she doesn't like hearing that tomato and salmon-scale genes have been crossed to express stronger tomato skins.

Ashland Shop N Kart manager Eric Chaddock says his "very vocal and informed customers," more and more are demanding organic and non-GMO foods and "just because the FDA says something is safe doesn't mean it's safe."

Leading the charge against genetically modified food is Physicians for Social Responsibility, whose spokesman in Portland, Rick North, says, "GMOs have not been demonstrated safe for human health and the environment "? the more people know about genetically engineered food, the more they don't want them ó and they vote with their dollars."

State-by-state laws requiring labeling of GMO foods is unlikely to work, so PSR and other groups are focusing on a federal labeling law, says North. A state ballot measure requiring GMO labeling was defeated in 2002.

"It was a popular idea until Monsanto, which makes most of the genetically engineered foods, poured millions of dollars into Oregon to defeat it," North says. While proven impacts of GMO food remain a question mark, Hoy remains unequivocal in her opposition, saying, "Nothing that's been genetically manipulated has been shown to be good for the consumer, more nutritious or easier to digest. They're not doing it in the interest of the consumer."

"There's no way to recall this genetic material," says Hoy, who worries about the persistence of GMOs in the environment. "I probably have it in me. How does it make me feel? Not very happy. It's getting harder and harder to eat food without more and more worry."

John Darling is a freelance writer living in Ashland. E-mail him at jdarling@jeffnet.org.

Foods most likely to contain GMOs:

•

Fresh corn

•

Fresh papaya

•

Cornbread mix

•

Corn meal

•

Soy flour

•

Veggie sausages

•

Tortilla chips

•

Flavored tortilla chips

•

Puffed corn snacks

•

Meatballs, burgers with soy protein

•

Soy-based protein drinks and powders

Foods least likely to contain GMOs

•

Organic anything

•

If corn, try blue corn or sweet corn.

•

Roma tomatoes

•

Pop or candy with fruit or natural sweeteners, instead of high-fructose corn syrup.

•

Potatoes are a good carbohydrate source, not GE as yet.

•

Anything labeled GMO-free

•

Food that's not processed

•

Popcorn

Arctic "doomsday vault" for seeds opens ó except GMOs

Reuters, 26 February 2008. By Alister Doyle.

A "doomsday vault" for the world's seeds opened in a mountainside on a Norwegian Arctic island on Tuesday but you won't find seeds of genetically engineered crops protected in the cavern.

Why not?

The short answer is that Norway bans the import of biotech crops, or GMOs, so the vault near Longyearbyen, about 1,000 km from the North Pole, can store only natural varieties of the world's seeds.

Apart from the import ban, officials argue GMO seeds are unnecessary. GMOs were created from natural wild seeds so scientists could re-engineer pest-resistant maize or bigger tomatoes if there were ever a disaster that threatened the world's agriculture. And GMOs represent only a tiny fraction of crop diversity.

GMOs were once famously described by Greenpeace as "Frankenfoods", but does it make sense to shut GMO seeds out of doomsday planning? After all, even if you don't like them, they probably won't be doing much harm frozen in a vault underground in an area of permafrost?

After a cataclysm such as a nuclear winter that could wipe out crops ó the vault is an insurance policy against such disasters ó you'd surely want the highest-yielding crops as soon as possible to feed survivors rather than send scientists off to a laboratory?

Or is there a remote nightmare scenario under which GMO crops themselves could disrupt world agriculture ó and so justify the Arctic "Noah's Ark"?

What do you think?

USA: Genetically engineered corn recalled

The Grand Island Independent, 26 February 2008. By Robert Pore.

Following on the heels of a massive recall of 143 million pounds of beef by the federal government earlier this month, government officials have now recalled a tainted genetically engineered variety of corn.

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that they are coordinating efforts following notification by Dow AgroSciences that the company detected extremely low levels of an unregistered genetically engineered (GE) pesticide product known as a plant-incorporated protectant (PIP) in three of its commercial GE hybrid corn seed lines.

According to Dow, the unregistered product produces proteins that are identical to a registered product.

The USDA, EPA and FDA have concluded that there are no public health, food or feed safety concerns. Additionally, USDA and EPA have determined that the unregistered GE corn PIP poses no plant pest or environmental concerns.

The unregistered GE corn PIP, known as Event 32, was found in some Herculex RW and Herculex XTRA Rootworm Protection products.

Seed containing low levels of the unregistered Event 32 was inadvertently sold to farmers by Dow's affiliate Mycogen Seeds and planted in 2006 and 2007.

EPA and USDA previously approved Herculex Rootworm Protection products containing a closely related PIP, Event 22. These products are also approved for use in several foreign countries.

In Nebraska, nearly 11.5 million acres of 13.1 million acres of corn and soybeans planted in 2007 were of biotechnology varieties. According to the USDA, 79 percent of Nebraska's corn was genetically engineered varieties and 95 percent of the soybeans was genetically engineered.

The Center for Food Safety has expressed concern about the recall of a genetically engineered (GE) crop known as Event 32.

The unapproved GE corn had found its way into three commercial corn seed lines that were planted on a total of 72,000 acres over the past two years, according to the center.

In 2000-01, another insecticide-producing GE corn known as Starlink was mistakenly introduced into the nation's food supply, leading to the nation's largest-ever food recall due to concerns that it could cause allergies in those who consumed contaminated corn products, according to the center.

"These days, it appears that the U.S. is not much better than China when it comes to allowing unapproved additives into foods destined for export," said Joe Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety. "These contamination episodes pose potential risks to consumers and hurt farmers through lower prices and lost markets, especially overseas. It's long past time we passed laws that make biotech companies financially liable for their sloppy and reckless behavior."

According to the center, though the government said Event 32 poses no health risk, it has not undergone established regulatory review procedures to check for potential adverse environmental or human health impacts.

It was the same lack of regulatory oversight that led to the massive beef recall this month and is expected to widen further, according to the Grocery Manufacturers of America, as more processed food is recalled that contains the beef, including soups, sauces, burritos and bouillon cubes. According to GMA, that could cost the industry hundreds of millions of dollars.

"The fact is that consumers have been exposed to yet another unapproved genetically altered plant, and since no testing has occurred, we cannot know what the health effects might be," Mendelson said. "In light of this week's massive recall of beef, the agencies' assurance that this corn poses no risk to consumers has a hollow ring."

According to the EPA, analysis determined that the introduced proteins produced by Event 32 are identical to those approved for Event 22, and therefore they are covered by an existing tolerance exemption (EPA food safety clearance).

FDA has concluded there are no food or feed safety concerns because EPA has determined that the introduced proteins in Event 32 are safe and because corn containing Event 32 is present in food or feed, if at all, only at low levels. In addition, APHIS' scientific analysis concluded that Event 32 poses no plant pest or environmental concerns.

The 2008 U.S. corn crop will not be affected. APHIS took steps to ensure Dow recalled all affected seed that was shipped to dealers for the 2008 planting season. APHIS and EPA are coordinating efforts to investigate potential violations under their respective regulatory acts.

According to government officials, Corn Event 32 was found at extremely low levels about three seeds per 1,000 in affected Herculex seed products.

Dow reported that in 2007 about 53,000 acres of the affected products were planted in the United States. Total U.S. corn acreage in 2007 was more than 93 million acres.

But despite the low levels, Keith Dittrich, chairman of the American Corn Grower Association's Board of Directors, said he's concerned with inadequate oversight by USDA that allowed the unregistered genetically engineered (GE) pesticide product to be planted in the first place.

"Just as the recent large beef recall has regrettably called into question our U.S. beef supply, our regulatory system must go to great lengths to ensure that no unapproved GE strains are allowed onto the market," said Dittrich.

He said the ACGA is calling for a more stringent, unbiased testing to be the standard when determining the safety of genetically modified materials.

"This is especially important in the case of a basic commodity, such as corn, which can be found in a high percentage of food products on our shelves today," Dittrich said.

Australia: Farmers to sue farmers

Network of Concerned Farmers press release, 26 February 2008
www.non-gm-farmers.com

The Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF) is threatening legal action against farmers growing GM canola unless risk management is introduced prior to planting. The GM moratorium is set to lapse in Victoria on February 28th and in New South Wales on March 3rd and NCF believe fair risk management has been denied.

"GM contamination will be uncontrollable but no minimum limit of contamination has been set for companies to deduct a user fee from our income," said Julie Newman, National Spokesperson for the Network of Concerned Farmers. "It's a blank cheque from farmers incomes to the biotech companies wether you want to grow GM or not."

"Australia will be the first country to accept the unique plant patent law with an end point royalty system which will allow a GM company to deduct a patent fee from our grain payments unless we prove we have no contamination. Fair risk management has been denied to non-GM farmers by allowing GM companies to be financially rewarded for contaminating our crops."

The Canadian National Farmers Union vice president, Terry Boehm recently toured Australia explaining how the choice for non-GM farmers has been removed. Not only has segregation failed but it is almost impossible to source uncontaminated non-GM seed or to replant farmers own seed. Non-GM varieties have been deregistered and farmers growing their own seed are threatened with legal action for growing contaminated crops.

"Canada recognises the GM patent rights but do not have an end point royalty. It has taken 12 years to remove the non-GM choice for non-GM growers and the seed cost has increased by 600% since introduction. Costs for seed and seed use now amount to Can$126/tonne or 23% of the gross value of the crop."

"Brazil recently approved GM products and while they do not recognise the GM patent rights they do recognise the end point royalty payment system. Soy farmers now pay 2% of the value of their crop to Monsanto unless they take rigorous and expensive steps to prove their product has not been contaminated with GM. With end point royalties, farmers are guilty unless proven innocent."

"The increasing GM adoption rate is more to do with the ability to collect payments from farmers rather than a willingness by farmers to pay these costs," said Mrs Newman

"The combination of uncontrollable contamination, GM patents and an end point royalty is a blank cheque to the biotech industry and we were told to "trust Monsanto" when we asked for risk management."

State governments are claiming that common law will be sufficient to deal with economic loss and liability issues and common law remedies involve non-GM growers taking legal action against GM growers. The Federal government released a paper on legal liability doubting the success of that action due to the inability to prove the source of contamination. NCF is working with lawyers to prepare the early legal action necessary to strengthen their case. This includes early notification to GM farmers of refusal to accept contamination, warning of inadequate crop management and coexistent plans and the need to take regular samples to establish the source of contamination.

"We are left with no choice, as much as we do not want to sue our neighbours, this is the only legal remedy available to protect ourselves."

Contact: Julie Newman 08 98711562 or 08 98711644

More information:

End point royalty system:

Australia and Brazil adopted an end point royalty system after signing the UPOV 91 International Treaty allowing companies to deduct a fee from grain payments on delivery of the grain to cover the breeder rights over the particular variety. A positive test using even a relatively insensitive field test would mean a 0.5% contamination would trigger 100% deduction of a user fee. Canada and America opposed this treaty and operate under the UPOV 67 treaty which has led to royalties being deducted when paying for the seed. If farmers replant their own seeds, the companies must pursue the farmers to collect their payments.

Patent:

Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay do not recognise the unique patent rights over GM crops. USA, Canada and Australia recognise these patent rights. Common law: Tort law operates under similar conditions as spray drift where farmers must ensure their operations do not cause loss to their neighbours. While spray drift is insurable, GM contamination drift is not as it is a probability not a possibility.

Roundup Ready in Canada 96/97:

Canadian average yield = 1.5t/ha , Canadian average price = $370/t = Harvested crop value of $555/ha

Average $6/lb seed cost (NFU) x 6 lb/acre (Canadian Canola Council recommendation) = $36/acre for seed + $15/acre for technology user fee (Terry Boehm NFU) = $51/acre = $126/ha. Average costs = 22.7% (or close enough to 23%) of value of crop for seed alone

Note:

NSW legislation has an addition to legislation that prevents farmers being sued for being contaminated, however that is not relevant with an end-point royalty system.

25 February 2008

EU farm chief says happy but wary on French stance

Reuters, 25 February 2008. By By Tamora Vidaillet.

France's willingness to discuss modifications to the bloc's Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) but any hint of protectionism would be unacceptable.

Speaking on the sidelines of Europe's biggest annual farm show under way in Paris, EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel said she believed that the European Commission shared some ideas on agricultural reform with France.

France is the European Union's main agricultural power, the largest exporter of farm products and the single biggest beneficiary of the CAP, worth more than 40 billion euros ($59.26 billion) a year in total.

Fischer Boel said that the fact the French government had been using the EU expression of "community preference" could prove risky, depending on what exactly it meant.

"To translate 'la preference communautaire' as the protection of European products, I'm not in favour of as Europe is today the biggest importer and the biggest exporter of agricultural products worldwide," she told a news conference.

"If we imagine that we now close our own markets for our own customers, then we would lose," she said.

Community preference was a doctrine applied at the birth of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy in the 1960s but it has been overtaken by world trade liberalisation. The European Court of Justice ruled in the 1990s it had no basis in EU law.

While Europe needed open markets, it would be very clear in demanding that imports adhered to the same health and safety standards as those applied in the 27-nation bloc, she added.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has called for a true system of community preferences, has denied that this means protectionism.

Sarkozy has argued that Europe should be able to take steps to protect itself given that trading rivals support their own farm sectors and industries.

'Special'

In November, Fischer Boel unveiled her so-called "health check" of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), a subsidy program that eats up some 40 percent of the EU's entire annual budget.

The proposals are due to be debated later this year. The final draft will be adopted in the second half when France, Europe's biggest farming nation, will take over the presidency of the European Union.

Turning to the subject of genetically modified (GMO) products used in animal feed, Fischer Boel called for deeper debate and an assessment of the facts.

Describing French views towards GMOs as "special", she stressed that 90 percent of all soybeans imported into Europe today were genetically modified and that the figure for maize imports stood at 50 percent.

While she had "no intention whatsoever to water down" the current approval system, which proved slower than mechanisms employed in the United States, deeper debate was needed.

Europe now had important choices to make on the imports of GMO products used in animal feed given that the current system of slow and complicated approvals could translate into higher prices for animal producers.

European consumers could also turn to cheaper food imports rather than EU produced farm goods, she said.

"I think we cheat the consumers because when we import beef from South America, (it) will be fed by GMs which are not even approved in Europe so we export our own production and that is crazy from my point of view," she said.

"Therefore I think we should have a discussion in the Council to see what can be done to avoid a situation where we have a shortage of imports of feed stuff -- soybeans -- which means at the end of the day that production will take place somewhere else," she said.

EU feedmakers have long complained of problems sourcing raw material, warning that the consequences of Europe's extreme caution and "zero tolerance" of unauthorised GMOs, even in tiny amounts, could be catastrophic for the food and feed sectors.

With world grain prices soaring and the EU's livestock and animal feed sectors facing supply shortages, pressure has mounted for the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, to do something about the speed at which the EU approves new GMOs.

Green groups have been lobbying hard for the EU not to change its position on unauthorised GMOs.

France, which recently slapped a temporary ban on the commercial use of the only GMO maize seed grown on its soil, is one of Europe's more anti-GMO nations.

Although seed makers say GMOs are totally harmless to humans, French consumers are highly suspicious of the possible health and environmental hazards of GMO use.

(Editing by Sybille de la Hamaide)

EU: MEP animal welfare group against animal cloning

Food Navigator, 25 February 2008.

A group of MEPs has called on the European Commission to prohibit cloning of animals for food.

The move comes just ahead of the closing date for reactions to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Draft Opinion on animal cloning.

Such reactions are likely to increase concerns amongst food manufacturers that the public perception of cloning remains negative. Many are already wary about developments in the cloning arena.

According to Eurogroup for Animals, a body representing animal welfare organisations in European member states, the resolution approved by the MEP Intergroup on Animal Welfare calls on the Commission to submit proposals to prohibit:

•

the cloning of animals for food supply

•

the farming of cloned animals or their offspring

•

the placing on the market of meat or dairy products derived from cloned animals or their offspring

•

the import of cloned animals or their offspring, semen and embryos from cloned animals or their offspring, and meat or dairy products derived from cloned animals or their offspring.

Eurogroup says that seventeen of the twenty-four MEPs present at the Intergroup voted in favour of the motion.

Eurogroup for Animals provides the Secretariat for the Intergroup.

Neil Parish MEP, the chairman of the Intergroup is quoted by Eurogroup as saying "I would like to see an EU-wide moratorium brought in immediately to stop food from cloned animals and their offspring from reaching the food chain"

The MEPs are joined in their concerns by the European Group on Ethics and New Technologies (EGE), which said earlier that it does not see "convincing arguments to justify the production of food from clones and their offspring."

It added that "Further ethical, legal and social implications of animals cloning for food supply as well as qualitative studies on public perception should be carried out."

Consumer concerns

During a recent technical meeting of the EFSA with its Stakeholder Consultative Platform, a report was referred to which highlighted the likely problems to be faced in persuading the public to accept cloned meat products.

It said "Cloned meat is likely to be a controversial issue with the European public, sitting as it does at the nexus of sensitivities around food, animals and the life sciences".

Even if cloned meat is shown to be equivalent to conventional meat "sections of the public will demand labelling" the practicalities of implementing which would be a challenge.

The report went on "In our view it is likely that the focus of public concerns will lean towards cultural taboos and semi-taboos rather than challenges to the scientific evidence".

Reports in the UK newspaper Daily Mail illustrate consumer concerns.Ý The newspaper writes that Britain's "first offspring of a cloned cow" and her sibling are to be sold at public auction "prompting fears that the food chain is open to Frankenstein farming".

The paper notes that "the two animals were the first results of clone farming to be born on British farms, just over a year ago", adding "there is currently no mechanism to stop milk and meat from clone offspring animals from going into the food chain"

Eurogroup says that the Intergroup on Animal Welfare, created in 1983, provides a forum for MEPs for debate and initiating action for a wide range of animal welfare and conservation issues. Where appropriate it takes initiatives that can lead to legislation.

Today is the deadline for responding to the EFSA Draft Opinion

UK: The return of Frankenstein Foods?

New Statesman, 25 February 2008. Mark Breddy.

The EU might not regulate on straight bananas, but it does have a say when it comes to environmental and health concerns linked to the food we eat. In the coming weeks, the European Commission will be gearing up for one of its most wide-ranging discussions ever on the food that's grown in our fields, fed to our animals and sold in our supermarkets.

After years of bitter disagreements between member states and European institutions on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the Commission has finally decided to hold an unprecedented debate on the future of GMOs in Europe. The president of the Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, has promised that the debate will be the first step before a public discussion involving all EU leaders.

But while the discussion might be public, the huge political and economic pressures applied behind the scenes will be very private indeed. The UK is likely to lead a small pack of pro-GMO countries and biotech industries who will push for markets to open up to these risky products. Over the crucial coming months, Greenpeace will keep a watchful eye to ensure that the GMO debate focuses on the interests of consumers, and not purely on the interests of a few multinational companies.

Claims by industry that GM products are good for the environment and a quick-fix solution to world hunger are extravagantly false. Recent studies have shown that growing GMOs actually increases the use of pesticides, contaminates wildlife and the environment, and has unpredictable and irreversible effects on animal and human health.

The causes of hunger and malnutrition are poverty and lack of access to food, not something that will be solved by pandering to the biotech industry. The world already feeds itself one-and-a-half times over; what we need is a fairer system where populations in developing countries don't have to go hungry while millions of tons of GM crops are grown for export.

GMO producers do their best to distort the figures, but the truth is that genetic engineering is essentially an American technology, used mostly by US companies such as Monsanto, Dow and DuPont. The industry's own figures show that almost 90% of the world's GM crops are produced by only four countries on the American continents, while over 92% of global land use is GMO-free. In fact, 172 countries don't grow GMOs at all. And independent polls consistently show that a majority of European citizens want to keep it that way.

Hot potato

In a telling case last week, EU farm ministers refused to authorise a GM potato known as Amflora. A significant majority of 15 member states opposed the product developed by German chemical company BASF. But because of EU rules, the ultimate decision which will affect half a billion European citizens now rests with the Commission.

The problem with the GM potato is that it contains a gene that confers resistance to certain antibiotics. The World Health Organisation (WHO) confirmed in an assessment that this could have serious implications for animal and human health, contradicting previous findings by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

Greenpeace flagged this up to the Commission in 2006 and the European Medicines Agency in London was asked for a third opinion. The antibiotics affected by the gene were found to be of "critical importance" for the treatment of illnesses. EFSA finally recognised its mistake in 2007, but failed to reach the logical conclusion and declare that the product was unsafe.

However, pressure on the Commission not to allow GMOs on the market is growing. The number of member states opposing the GM potato last week was up to 15, from 11 in a previous vote, although the UK has consistently been in favour. European media have also begun reporting the huge cracks that exist in the EU's EFSA-centred GMO authorisation process, while our team of policy experts is working closely with the Greenpeace Science Unit at Exeter University and putting pressure on decision-makers to turn headlines into meaningful policy.

Most people will know Greenpeace for its non-violent confrontations which expose threats to the environment and draw media attention the world over. But, whether we are dealing with the biotech industry or with Japanese whalers, our job is also to monitor the corridors and boardrooms where ships and climbers cannot reach, wiping away the sense of invulnerability felt by top officials and corporate lobbyists far from public view.

24 February 2008

Australia: Consultants reap GM crop windfall

The Sunday Age, February 24 2008.

The State Government spent more than $165,000 on consultants to overturn its divisive ban on growing genetically modified crops.

In November, a panel headed by Victoria's chief scientist, Sir Gustav Nossal, recommended the four-year ban on growing GM canola be lifted - and new documents revealing consultancy costs show their work alone cost more than $18,000.

The document, obtained by The Sunday Age under freedom of information, show Sir Gus billed for holding a meeting with Agriculture Minister Joe Helper, briefing Labor Party caucus, meeting and conducting a press conference with Premier John Brumby, media interviews and "correspondence with critics".

Consulting firm ACIL Tasman charged almost $91,000 for its economic analysis and the final report, while the remainder of consultancy fees was billed at more than $55,000.

The total pay to consultants, including the expenses incurred by the panel, was $165,200, plus change.

GM canola can be grown in Victoria from next month, after the panel found contamination between GM and non-GM crops could be contained, with Sir Gus saying the health impacts had been thoroughly examined.

The panel, which included Christine Forster and Merna Curnow, was appointed by former premier Steve Bracks to consider the economic impact of GM canola in Victoria.

While the decision was welcomed by many in the rural sector, it sparked protests from anti-GM activists and a backlash from several Labor MPs, with bitter criticism directed against Mr Brumby over his handling of the divisive issue.

Canola is the only major GM food crop that has been approved to be grown commercially in Australia.

At the time of the decision, outspoken Labor MP Tammy Lobato accused the Premier of an "inability and unwillingness to listen" and compared the effects of GM crops to asbestos.

Ms Lobato said the bulk of the costs of the "so-called" independent review had gone to ACIL Tasman, which she said had a pro-GM position and boasted clients such as Monsanto.

"It really is like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank," she said.

Anti-GM group Gene Ethics said the inquiry was window dressing and ACIL Tasman had always taken the view that GM technology should go ahead on economic grounds.

Director of the group Bob Phelps said: "They and the report itself take no account of the costs, let alone any other aspect of the public health or environmental impacts."

But Agriculture Minister Joe Helper said the Government stood by the thoroughness and independence of the panel report. "These claims, given they come from those opposed to the lifting of the moratorium on GM canola, are highly predictable," he said.

23 February 2008

Update from the GM-Free Brazil Campaign

Brazil, Rio de Janeiro, February 23, 2007

Greetings from Brazil!

Last week the Brazilian government licensed the commercial release of two varieties of GM maize: MON810, produced by Monsanto, and Liberty Link, produced by Bayer. In 2007 CTNBio (the National Technical Commission for Biosafety), the body responsible for analysing risk assessments and licensing genetically modified products and activities in Brazil, had ruled in favour of the commercial use of GM maize. However, appeals lodged by IBAMA (the federal environmental institute linked to the Ministry of the Environment) and ANVISA (a federal health authority linked to the Ministry of Health) had blocked the release.

The case was referred to the National Biosafety Council (CNBS), a body formed by 11 ministers. Last week the council of ministers, by seven votes to four, ignored the technical analysis of both federal agencies and approved the cultivation and commercialization of GM maize - the first time that commercial planting of transgenic maize has been licensed in Brazil.

Those ministries with a direct involvement in this issue opposed the ruling. As well as the Environment and Health Ministries, both Agrarian Development and Fishing also voted against release of the GM crops. Those voting in favour were the Office of the Chief of Staff, along with Foreign Affairs, Defence, Justice, Trade & Industry, Agriculture and Science & Technology. In other words, biosafety was clearly placed second to economic interests. The okay given to Monsanto and Bayer reflects the Brazilian government's policy of favouring large companies and ceding to the demands of agribusiness and the rural lobby in the National Congress.

The CNBS had already met on January 29th to consider the appeals lodged by ANVISA and IBAMA. However, the Agriculture Minister, Reinhold Stephanes, appointed to report on the case, had sent his report to the ministers in favour of GMOs by this date, but not to those who stood opposed. Voting was therefore postponed to February 12th and the Presidential Chief of Staff, Dilma Roussef, sent a communication to the Federal Attorney General's Office asking for clarifications concerning the role of IBAMA and ANVISA in approving transgenic crops: a blatant attempt to 'frame' these agencies, overriding their legal powers and monopolizing the decision on GMOs in the CTNBio.

Following the meeting held on January 29th, the Agriculture and Science & Technology Ministers, Reinhold Stephanes and Sergio Rezende, issued statements in the press claiming to know of the existence of illegal plantations of transgenic maize in Brazil and arguing that the best solution to the problem would be to legalize the illegal crops 'under clearly defined regulations' - a shameful argument in support of the release of transgenic crops.

The organizations and social movements involved in the Campaign will insist that the seven ministries who voted for release of the crops justify their decision. In the name of transparency, we demand to know their positions on biosafety and the socioeconomic impacts of releasing GM maize.

In addition to the pressure from social movements and consumers, which will undoubtedly continue, a judicial ruling on the legality of the CTNBio's decision is still pending. Also the Health Minister Jose Gomes Temporao declared that ANVISA will not register GM maize products until its safety is demonstrated.

Maize crops in Brazil possess an enormous genetic diversity. In the Central-South of Parana alone, one of the regions where AS-PTA is active, 145 varieties of maize have already been identified. As well as being incompatible with the monopoly imposed by transgenic crops, this diversity plays a fundamental role in ensuring the food security, income generation and technological autonomy of thousands of families.

So who will assume responsibility for the widespread contamination of this genetic heritage and for the losses faced by these farmers, including the loss of external market? Who will assume responsibility for future legal actions over alleged patent violations prompted by crop contamination? Certainly not the 15 or 17 members of the CTNBio who gave their assurance that this maize is safe.

'Now, I am radically opposed [to the release of GM crops] and I believe it is a backward step for the government to pursue this policy. In reality, this is happening because this country's political elite is once again succumbing to the overtures of a multinational.' So said Luiz In›cio Lula da Silva in July 2001 on the Family Farming Caravan during his electoral campaign for the Presidency, referring to the release of transgenic soya.

The multinational remains the same. Meanwhile the political elite has changed, but likewise remains the same.

___________

GM-FREE BRAZIL - Published by AS-PTA Assessoria e Servios a Projetos em Agricultura Alternativa. The GM-Free Brazil Campaign is a collective of Brazilian NGOs, social movements and individuals.

AS-PTA an independent, not-for-profit Brazilian organisation dedicated to promoting the sustainable rural development. Head office: Rua da Candel›ria, 9/6œ andar/ CEP: 20.091-020, Centro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Phone: 0055-21-2253-8317 Fax: 0055-21-2233-363

This article can be found on the AS-PTA website at http://www.aspta.org.br

22 February 2008

Potential Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods

Global Research, February 22 2008. By Stephen Lendman.

This article discusses the potential health risks of genetically engineered foods (GMOs). It draws on some previously used material because its importance bears repeating. It also cites three notable books and highlights one in particular - Jeffrey Smith's "Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods." Detailed information from the book is featured below.

Genetically engineered foods saturate our diet today. In the US alone, over 80% of all processed foods contain them. Others include grains like rice, corn and wheat; legumes like soybeans and soy products; vegetable oils, soft drinks; salad dressings; vegetables and fruits; dairy products including eggs; meat, chicken, pork and other animal products; and even infant formula plus a vast array of hidden additives and ingredients in processed foods (like in tomato sauce, ice cream, margarine and peanut butter). Consumers don't know what they're eating because labeling is prohibited, yet the danger is clear. Independently conducted studies show the more of these foods we eat, the greater the potential harm to our health.

Today, consumers are kept in the dark and are part of an uncontrolled, unregulated mass human experiment the results of which are unknown. Yet, the risks are enormous, it will take years to learn them, and when we finally know it'll be too late to reverse the damage if it's proved conclusively that genetically engineered foods harm human health as growing numbers of independent experts believe. Once GM seeds are introduced to an area, the genie is out of the bottle for keeps. There is nothing known to science today to reverse the contamination already spread over two-thirds of arable US farmland and heading everywhere unless checked.

This is happening in spite of the risk because of what F. William Engdahl revealed in his powerfully important, well documented book titled "Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation." It's the diabolical story of how Washington and four Anglo-American agribusiness giants plan world domination by patenting animal and vegetable life forms to gain worldwide control of our food supply, make it all genetically engineered, and use it as a weapon to reward friends and punish enemies.

Today, consumers eat these foods daily without knowing the potential health risks. In 2003, Jeffrey Smith explained them in his book titled "Seeds of Deception." He revealed that efforts to inform the public have been quashed, reliable science has been buried, and consider what happened to two distinguished scientists - UC Berkeley's Ignacio Chapela and former Scotland Rowett Research Institute researcher and world's leading lectins and plant genetic modification expert, Arpad Pusztai. They were vilified, hounded, and threatened for their research, and in the case of Pusztai, fired from his job for doing it.

He believed in the promise of GM foods, was commissioned to study them, and conducted the first ever independent one on them anywhere. Like other researchers since, he was shocked by his findings. Rats fed GM potatoes had smaller livers, hearts, testicles and brains, damaged immune systems, and showed structural changes in their white blood cells making them more vulnerable to infection and disease compared to other rats fed non-GMO potatoes. It got worse. Thymus and spleen damage showed up; enlarged tissues, including the pancreas and intestines; and there were cases of liver atrophy as well as significant proliferation of stomach and intestines cells that could be a sign of greater future risk of cancer. Equally alarming, results showed up after 10 days of testing, and they persisted after 110 days that's the human equivalent of 10 years.

Later independent studies confirmed what Pusztai learned, and Smith published information on them in his 2007 book called "Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods." The book is encyclopedic in depth, an invaluable comprehensive source, and this article reviews some of the shocking data in it.

Compelling Evidence of Potential GMO Harm

In his introduction, Smith cites the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) policy statement on GM food safety without a shred of evidence to back it. It supported GHW Bush's Executive Order that GMOs are "substantially equivalent" to ordinary seeds and crops and need no government regulation. The agency said it was "not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way." That single statement meant no safety studies are needed and "Ultimately, it is the food producer" that bears responsibility "for assuring safety." As a consequence, foxes now guard our henhouse in a brave new dangerous world.

FDA policy opened the floodgates, and Smith put it this way: It "set the stage for the rapid deployment of the new technology," allowed the seed industry to become "consolidated, millions of acres (to be) planted, hundreds of millions to be fed (these foods in spite of nations and consumers objecting, and) laws to be passed (to assure it)." The toll today is contaminated crops, billions of dollars lost, human health harmed, and it turns out the FDA lied.

The agency knew GM crops are "meaningfully different" because their technical experts told them so. As a result, they recommended long-term studies, including on humans, to test for possible allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. Instead, politics trumped science, the White House ordered the FDA to promote GM crops, and a former Monsanto vice-president went to FDA to assure it.

Today, the industry is unregulated, and when companies say their foods are safe, their views are unquestioned. Further, Smith noted that policy makers in other countries trust FDA and wrongly assume their assessments are valid. They're disproved when independent studies are matched against industry-run ones. The differences are startling. The former report adverse affects while the latter claim the opposite. It's no secret why. Agribusiness giants allow nothing to interfere with profits, safety is off the table, and all negative information is quashed.

As a result, their studies are substandard, adverse findings are hidden, and they typically "fail to investigate the impacts of GM food on gut function, liver function, kidney function, the immune system, endocrine system, blood composition, allergic response, effects on the unborn, the potential to cause cancer, or impacts on gut bacteria." In addition, industry-funded studies creatively avoid finding problems or conceal any uncovered. They cook the books by using older instead of younger more sensitive animals, keep sample sizes too low for statistical significance, dilute the GM component of feeds used, limit the duration of feeding trials, ignore animal deaths and sickness, and engage in other unscientific practices. It's to assure people never learn of the potential harm from these foods, and Smith says they can do it because "They've got 'bad science' down to a science."

The real kinds show GMOs produce "massive changes in the natural functioning of (a) plant's DNA. Native genes can be mutated, deleted, permanently turned off or on....the inserted gene can become truncated, fragmented, mixed with other genes, inverted or multiplied, and the GM protein it produces may have unintended characteristics" that may be harmful.

GMOs also pose other health risks. When a transgene functions in a new cell, it may produce different proteins than the ones intended. They may be harmful, but there's no way to know without scientific testing. Even if the protein is exactly the same, there are still problems. Consider corn varieties engineered to produce a pesticidal protein called Bt-toxin. Farmers use it in spray form, and companies falsely claim it's harmless to humans. In fact, people exposed to the spray develop allergic-type symptoms, mice ingesting Bt had powerful immune responses and abnormal and excessive cell growth, and a growing number of human and livestock illnesses are linked to Bt crops.

Smith notes still another problem relating to inserted genes. Assuming they're destroyed by our digestive system, as industry claims, is false. In fact, they may move from food into gut bacteria or internal organs, and consider the potential harm. If corn genes with Bt-toxin get into gut bacteria, our intestinal flora may become pesticide factories. There's been no research done to prove if it's true or false. Agribusiness giants aren't looking, neither is FDA, consumers are left to play "Genetic Roulette," and the few animal feeding studies done show the odds are against them.

Arpad Pusztai and other scientists were shocked at their results of animals fed GM foods. His results were cited above. Other independent studies showed stunted growth, impaired immune systems, bleeding stomachs, abnormal and potentially precancerous cell growth in the intestines, impaired blood cell development, misshaped cell structures in the liver, pancreas and testicles, altered gene expression and cell metabolism, liver and kidney lesions, partially atrophied livers, inflamed kidneys, less developed organs, reduced digestive enzymes, higher blood sugar, inflamed lung tissue, increased death rates and higher offspring mortality as well.

There's more. Two dozen farmers reported their pigs and cows fed GM corn became sterile, 71 shepherds said 25% of their sheep fed Bt cotton plants died, and other reports showed the same effects on cows, chickens, water buffaloes and horses. After GM soy was introduced in the UK, allergies from the product skyrocketed by 50%, and in the US in the 1980s, a GM food supplement killed dozens and left five to ten thousand others sick or disabled.

Today, Monsanto is the world's largest seed producer, and Smith notes how the company deals with reports like these. In response to the US Public Health Service concerning adverse reactions from its toxic PCBs, the company claims its experience "has been singularly free of difficulties." That's in spite of lawsuit-obtained records showing "this was part of a cover-up and denial that lasted decades" by a company with a long history of irresponsible behavior that includes "extensive bribery, highjacking of regulatory agencies, suppressing negative information about its products" and threatening journalists and scientists who dare report them. The company long ago proved it can't be trusted with protecting human health.

In his book, "Seeds of Destruction," Engdahl names four dominant agribusiness giants - Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Agrisciences and Syngenta in Switzerland from the merger of the agriculture divisions of Novartis and AstraZeneca. Smith calls these companies Ag biotech and names a fifth - Germany-based Bayer CropScience AG (division of Bayer AG) with its Environmental Science and BioScience headquarters in France.

Their business is to do the impossible and practically overnight - change the laws of nature and do them one better for profit. So far they haven't independent because genetic engineering doesn't work like natural breeding. It may or may not be a lot of things, but it isn't sex, says Smith. Michael Antoniou, a molecular geneticist involved in human gene therapy, explains that genetic modification "technically and conceptually bears no resemblance to natural breeding." The reproduction process works by both parents contributing thousands of genes to the offspring. They, in turn, get sorted naturally, and plant breeders have successfully worked this way for thousands of years.

Genetic manipulation is different and so far fraught with danger. It works by forcibly inserting a single gene from a species' DNA into another unnaturally. Smith puts it this way: "A pig can mate with a pig and a tomato can mate with a tomato. But this is no way that a pig can mate with a tomato and vice versa." The process transfers genes across natural barriers that "separated species over millions of years of evolution" and managed to work. The biotech industry now wants us to believe it can do nature one better, and that genetic engineering is just an extension or superior alternative to natural breeding. It's unproved, indefensible pseudoscience mumbo jumbo, and that's the problem.

Biologist David Schubert explains that industry claims are "not only scientifically incorrect but exceptionally deceptive....to make the GE process sound similar to conventional plant breeding." It a smoke screen to hide the fact that what happens in laboratories can't duplicate nature, at least not up to now. Genetic engineering involves combining genes that never before existed together, the process defies natural breeding proved safe over thousands of years, and there's no way to assure the result won't be a deadly unrecallable Andromeda Strain, no longer the world of science fiction.

The industry pooh-pooh's the suggestion of potential harm, and unscientifically claims millions of people in the US and worldwide have eaten GM food for a decade, and no one got sick. Smith's reply: How can we know as "GM foods might already be contributing to serious health problems, but since no one is monitoring for this, it could take decades" to find out. By then, it will be too late and some industry critics argue it already may be or dangerously close.

Today, most existing diseases have no effective surveillance systems in place. If GM foods create new ones, that potentially compounds the problem manyfold. Consider HIV/AIDS. It went unnoticed for decades and when identified, many thousands worldwide were infected or had died.

Then there's the problem of linkage. In the US and many countries, GM foods are unlabeled so it's impossible tracing illness and diseases to specific substances ingested even if thousands of people are affected. It can plausibly be blamed on anything, especially when governments and regulatory agencies support industry claims of reliability and safety.

It's rare that problems like the L-Tryptophan epidemic of the late 1980s are identified, but when it was thousands were already harmed. L-Tryptophan is a natural amino acid constituent of most proteins and for years was produced by many companies including Showa Denko in Japan. The company then got greedy, saw a way to increase profits from a product designed to induce sleep naturally, and gene-spliced a bacterium into the natural product to do it. The result was many dozens dead, over 1500 crippled, and up to 10,000 afflicted with a blood disorder from a new incurable disease called Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome or EMS.

It's a painful, multi-system disease that causes permanent scarring and fibrosis to nerve and muscle tissues, continuing inflammation, and a permanent change in a person's immune system. It cost the company two billion dollars to settle claims. Hundreds have since died, in all likelihood from contracting EMS.

This is the known toll from a single product. Consider the potential harm with Ag biotech wanting all foods to be unlabeled GMOs worldwide and governments unable to balk because WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) and Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) rules deny them. They're also prevented under WTO's Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS). It states that national laws banning GMO products are "unfair trade practices" even when they endanger human health. Other WTO rules also apply - called "Technical Barriers to Trade." They prohibit GMO labeling so consumers don't know what they're eating and can't avoid these potentially hazardous foods.

The 1996 Biosafety Protocol was drafted to prevent this problem, and it should be in place to do it. Public safety, however, was ambushed by Washington, the FDA and the agribusiness lobby. It sabotaged talks and insisted biosafety measures be subordinate to WTO trade rules that apply regardless of other considerations, including public health and safety. The path is thus cleared for the unrestricted spread of GMO seeds and foods worldwide unless a way is found to stop it.

Independent Animal Studies Showing GMO Harm

Rats fed genetically engineered Calgene Flavr-Savr tomatoes (developed to look fresh for weeks) for 28 days got bleeding stomachs (stomach lesions) and seven died and were replaced in the study.

Rats fed Monsanto 863 Bt corn for 90 days developed multiple reactions typically found in response to allergies, infections, toxins, diseases like cancer, anemia and blood pressure problems. Their blood cells, livers and kidneys showed significant changes indicative of disease.

Mice fed either GM potatoes engineered to produce Bt- toxin or natural potatoes containing the toxin had intestinal damage. Both varieties created abnormal and excessive cell growth in the lower intestine. The equivalent human damage might cause incontinence or flu-like symptoms and could be pre-cancerous. The study disproved the contention that digestion destroys Bt-toxin and is not biologically active in mammals.

Workers in India handling Bt cotton while picking, loading, weighing and separating the fiber from seeds developed allergies. They began with "mild to severe itching," then redness and swelling, followed by skin eruptions. These symptoms affected their skin, eyes (got red and swollen with excessive tearing) and upper respiratory tract causing nasal discharge and sneezing. In some cases, hospitalization was required. At one cotton gin factory, workers take antihistamines daily.

Sheep grazing on Bt cotton developed "unusual systems" before dying "mysteriously." Reports from four Indian villages revealed 25% of them died within a week. Post mortems indicated a toxic reaction. The study raises questions about cottonseed oil safety and human health for people who eat meat from animals fed GM cotton. It's crucial to understand that what animals eat, so do people.

Nearly all 100 Filipinos living adjacent to a Bt corn field became ill. Their symptoms appeared when the crop was producing airborne pollen and was apparently inhaled. Doing it produced headaches, dizziness, extreme stomach pain, vomiting, chest pains, fever, and allergies plus respiratory, intestinal and skin reactions. Blood tests conducted on 39 victims showed an antibody response to Bt-toxin suggesting it was the cause. Four other villages experienced the same problems that also resulted in several animal deaths.

Iowa farmers reported a conception rate drop of from 80% to 20% among sows (female pigs) fed GM corn. Most animals also had false pregnancies, some delivered bags of water and others stopped menstruating. Male pigs were also affected as well as cows and bulls. They became sterile and all were fed GM corn.

German farmer Gottfried Glockner grew GM corn and fed it to his cows. Twelve subsequently died from the Bt 176 variety, and other cows had to be destroyed due to a "mysterious" illness. The corn plots were field trials for Ag biotech giant Syngenta that later took the product off the market with no admission of fault.

Mice fed Monsanto Roundup Ready soybeans developed significant liver cell changes indicating a dramatic general metabolism increase. Symptoms included irregularly shaped nuclei and nucleoli, and an increased number of nuclear pores and other changes. It's thought this resulted from exposure to a toxin, and most symptoms disappeared when Roundup Ready was removed from the diet.

Mice fed Roundup Ready had pancreas problems, heavier livers and unexplained testicular cell changes. The Monsanto product also produced cell metabolism changes in rabbit organs, and most offspring of rats on this diet died within three weeks.

The death rate for chickens fed GM Liberty Link corn for 42 days doubled. They also experienced less weight gain, and their food intake was erratic.

In the mid-1990s, Australian scientists discovered that GM peas generated an allergic-type inflammatory response in mice in contrast to the natural protein that had no adverse effect. Commercialization of the product was cancelled because of fear humans might have the same reaction.

When given a choice, animals avoid GM foods. This was learned by observing a flock of geese that annually visit an Illinois pond and feed on soybeans from an adjacent farm. After half the acreage had GM crops, the geese ate only from the non-GMO side. Another observation showed 40 deer ate organic soybeans from one field but shunned the GMO kind across the road. The same thing happened with GM corn.

Inserting foreign or transgenes is called insertional mutagenesis or insertion mutation. When done, it usually disrupts DNA at the insertion site and affects gene functioning overall by scrambling, deleting or relocating the genetic code near the insertion site.

The process of creating a GM plant requires scientists first to isolate and grow plant cells in the laboratory using a tissue culture process. The problem is when it's done it can create hundreds or thousands of DNA mutations throughout the genome. Changing a single base pair may be harmful. However, widespread genome changes compound the potential problem manyfold.

Promoters are used in GM crops as switches to turn on the foreign gene. When done, the process may accidently switch on other natural plant genes permanently. The result may be to overproduce an allergen, toxin, carcinogen, antinutrient, enzymes that stimulate or inhibit hormone production, RNA that silences genes, or changes that affect fetal development. They may also produce regulators that block other genes and/or switch on a dormant virus that may cause great harm. In addition, evidence suggests the promoter may create genetic instability and mutations that can result in the breakup and recombination of the gene sequence.

Plants naturally produce thousands of chemicals to enhance health and protect against disease. However, changing plant protein may alter these chemicals, increase plant toxins and/or reduce its phytonutrients. For example, GM soybeans produce less cancer-fighting isoflavones. Overall, studies show genetic modification produces unintended changes in nutrients, toxins, allergens and small molecule metabolism products.

To create a GM soybean with a more complete protein balance, Pioneer Hi-Bred inserted a Brazil nut gene. By doing it, an allergenic protein was introduced affecting people allergic to Brazil nuts. When tests confirmed this, the project was cancelled. GM proteins in other crops like corn and papaya may also be allergenic. The same problem exists for other crops like Bt corn, and evidence shows allergies skyrocketed after GM crops were introduced.

Another study of Monsanto's high-lysine corn showed it contained toxins and other potentially harmful substances that may retard growth. If consumed in large amounts, it may also adversely affect human health. In addition, when this product is cooked, it may produce toxins associated with Alzheimer's, diabetes, allergies, kidney disease, cancer and aging symptoms.

Disease-resistant crops like zucchini, squash and Hawaiian papaya may promote human viruses and other diseases, and eating these products may suppress the body's natural defense against viral infections.

Protein structural aspects in GM crops may be altered in unforeseen ways. They may be misfolded or have added molecules. During insertion, transgenes may become truncated, rearranged or interspersed with other DNA pieces with unknown harmful effects. Transgenes may also be unstable and spontaneously rearrange over time, again with unpredictable consequences. In addition, they may create more than one protein from a process called alternative splicing. Environmental factors, weather, natural and man-made substances and genetic disposition of a plant further complicate things and pose risks. They're introduced as well because genetic engineering disrupts complex DNA relationships.

Contrary to industry claims, studies show transgenes aren't destroyed digestively in humans or animals. Foreign DNA can wander, survive in the gastro-intestinal tract, and be transported by blood to internal organs. This raises the risk that transgenes may transfer to gut bacteria, proliferate over time, and get into cells DNA, possibly causing chronic diseases. A single human feeding study confirmed that genes, in fact, transferred from GM soy into the DNA gut bacteria of three of seven test subjects.

Antibiotic Resister Marker (ARM) genes are attached to transgenes prior to insertion and allow cells to survive antibiotic applications. If ARM genes transfer to pathogenic gut or mouth bacteria, they potentially can cause antibiotic-resistant super-diseases. The proliferation of GM crops increases the possibility. The CaMV promoter in nearly all GMOs can also transfer and may switch on random genes or viruses that produce toxins, allergens or carcinogens as well as create genetic instability.

GM crops interact with their environment and are part of a complex ecosystem that includes our food. These crops may increase environmental and other toxins that may accumulate throughout the food chain. Crops genetically engineered to be glufosinate (herbicide)resistant may produce intestinal herbicide with known toxic effects. If transference to gut bacteria occurs, greater problems may result.

Repeated use of seeds like Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans results in vicious new super-weeds that need far greater amounts of stronger herbicides to combat. Their toxic residues remain in crops that humans and animals then eat. Even small amounts of these toxins may be endocrine disruptors that can affect human reproduction adversely. Evidence exists that GM crops accumulate toxins or concentrate them in milk or animals fed GM feed. Disease-resistant crops may also produce new plant viruses that affect humans.

All type GM foods, not just crops, carry these risks. Milk, for example, from cows injected with Monsanto's bovine growth hormone (rbGH), has much higher levels of the hormone IGF-1 that risks breast, prostate, colon, lung and other cancers. The milk also has lower nutritional value. GM food additives also pose health risks, and their use has proliferated in processed foods.

Potential harm to adults is magnified for children. Another concern is that pregnant mothers eating GM foods may endanger their offspring by harming normal fetal development and altering gene expression that's then passed to future generations. Children are also more endangered than adults, especially those drinking substantial amounts of rbGH-treated milk.

Conclusion

The above information is largely drawn from Smith's "Genetic Roulette." The data is startling and confirms a clear conclusion. The proliferation of untested, unregulated GM foods in the span of a decade is more a leap of faith than reliable science. Microbiologist Richard Lacey captures the risk stating: "it is virtually impossible to even conceive of a testing procedure to assess the health effects of (GM) foods when introduced into the food chain, nor is there any valid nutritional or public interest reason for their introduction." Other scientists worldwide agree that GM foods entered the market long before science could evaluate their safety and benefits. They want a halt to this dangerous experiment that needs decades of rigorous research and testing before we can know.

Unchecked and unregulated, human health and safety are at risk because once GMOs enter the food chain, the genie is out of the bottle for keeps. Thankfully, resistance is growing worldwide, many millions are opposed, but reversing the tide won't be easy. Washington and Ag biotech are on a roll with big unstated aims - total control of our food, making it all genetically engineered, and scheming to use it as a weapon to reward friends and punish enemies.

Smith is hopeful that people will prevail over profits. Hopefully he's right because human health and safety must never be compromised. Resistance already halted the introduction of new crop varieties, and Smith believes that with enough momentum existing ones may end up withdrawn. He cites an example he calls a "Shift away from GM foods in the United States" in 2007. Leading it is an initiative launched last spring to remove GM ingredients from the entire natural food sector. It's led by a coalition of natural food products producers, distributors and retailers along with the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT). It's called the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America, and its aims are big - to educate consumers about GM food risks and promote healthy alternatives through shopping guides.

A Pew survey reported that 29% of Americans, representing 87 million people, strongly oppose these foods and believe they're unsafe. That's a respectable start if backed up with efforts to avoid them, and more information how is at ResponsibleTechnology.org. Jeffrey Smith founded IRT in 2003 "to promote the responsible use of technology and stop GM foods and crops through both grassroots and national strategies." It seeks safe alternatives and aims to "ban the genetic engineering of our food supply and all outdoor releases of (GM) organisms, at least until (or unless scientific opinion) believes such products are safe and appropriate based on independent and reliable data."

IRT urges consumers to become educated about the risks, mobilize to combat them and act in our mutual self-interest. It's beginning to happen, and Smith believes "there is an excellent chance that food manufacturers will abandon GM foods in the near future" if a public groundswell demands it. He ends his book saying: "Although GMOs present one of the greatest dangers, with informed, motivated people, it is one of the easiest global issues to solve." Hopefully he's right.

Global Research Associate Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hours on RBN Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions of world and national topics with distinguished guests.

Stephen Lendman is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

USA: Traces of unapproved GMO trait found in U.S. corn

Reuters, 22 February 2008. By Lisa Shumaker.

Chicago -- Traces of an unapproved genetically modified trait were found in U.S. corn planted in 2006 and 2007 but the grain poses no threat to food or feed safety, said the U.S Agriculture Department on Friday.

The 2008 corn crop will not be affected when it is planted this spring across the United States, the world's largest corn exporter.

The unapproved GMO trait, known as Event 32, was found in approximately three seeds per 1,000 in Herculex RW and Herculex XTRA Rootworm Protection corn samples. The Herculex brand is made by Dow AgroSciences LLC, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical Co.

Dow reported the discovery to the government on January 25, said Cindy Ragin, spokeswoman for USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

"We took steps to investigate the information that was submitted to us by Dow," she said. "We don't think our trading partners will stop corn trade with the United States. There are no food or feed safety concerns."

Biotech crops are widely accepted in the United States, with GMO crops found on 73 percent of U.S. corn acres in 2007, according to USDA data. GMO seeds can improve yields, withstand herbicides and repel pests.

Other parts of the world, especially Europe, have been reluctant to accept GMO food due to concerns about dangers to the environment and human health.

Dow recalled seed shipped in 2008

Dow said the GMO contamination originated with a small research plot, according to a news release on its Web site.

Farmers planted 53,000 acres with the affected seed in 2007, Dow told APHIS. The total U.S. corn acreage last year was 93 million acres.

The seed was inadvertently sold to farmers by Dow AgroSciences' affiliate Mycogen Seeds.

The unapproved GMO trait produces proteins that are identical to an approved trait, APHIS said. The approved trait is also permitted by several foreign countries.

Dow recalled the affected seed that was shipped to farmers for the 2008 planting season.

Grain traders said the discovery would not affect U.S. corn sales.

"Demand is too strong and alterative suppliers too few," said a grain trader. "But it could make it more difficult if there are new testing and analysis requirements. And it certainly gives us another black eye."

The trader was referring to an incident in the fall of 2000 when a biotech corn called StarLink, approved for use only as animal feed, was found in the human food chain, sparking a nationwide recall of taco shells and corn products foods from grocery shelves.

The detection led several countries to temporarily ban imports of U.S. corn, including Japan, the top U.S. corn buyer. (Editing by Marguerita Choy)

USA: Unapproved biotech corn grown in Iowa

Desmoines Register, February 22 2008. By Philip Brasher.

Washington, D.C. - Some corn seed produced by Dow AgroSciences and grown in Iowa has been contaminated with small amounts of an unapproved biotech variety since 2006, the company and government officials disclosed Friday.

Federal officials said that there was no risk to humans or livestock from the grain and that it won't be recalled. However, Dow has recalled the contaminated seed that was sold for the 2008 crop.

Most of the contaminated corn was planted in Iowa and most of the recalled seed had been distributed in the state, according to the company.

It is the latest in a series of incidents in which unapproved biotech varieties of corn and rice have made their way into seed or grain supplies. The first incident occurred in 2000 when a genetically modified corn variety known as StarLink was found in food products despite not having been approved for human consumption.

Greg Jaffe of the Center for Science in the Public Interest said the Dow mixup shows that the biotech industry isn't policing itself adequately.

The contamination occurred when pollen from the unapproved biotech corn stalks landed on a patch of approved stalks, said Garry Hamlin, a spokesman for Dow. Both types of plants were growing in the same research plot.

Dow discovered the contaminated seed while doing some testing last month and notified the government Jan. 25, Hamlin said.

The contaminated seed was sold by Dow affiliate Mycogen Seeds under the labels Herculex RW and Herculex XTRA. The seed is genetically engineered to make the plants toxic to insect pests.

The Environmental Protection Agency said the contaminated grain posed no safety risk because the proteins produced by the unapproved Dow variety, known as Event 32, were identical to the proteins in an approved variety, known as Event 22.

UK: Farmers and GM Crops: new report slammed as "propaganda dressed up as science"

Press Notice from GM Free Cymru, 22 February 2008

The Open University and the Economic and Social Research Council have been slammed for deception and duplicity following the release of a press statement about a new study into the attitudes of farmers towards GM crops.

The press statement, embargoed until 1 am on Sunday 24th February, begins with these words: "Farmers are upbeat about genetically modified crops, according to new research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)." Although there is an admission in the text that the researchers canvassed the views of large-scale commodity farmers in their work, the lead author, Prof Andy Lane, is quoted as saying "New technology such as GM is attractive to farmers", and there are several other references in the press release to the attitudes of farmers in general to new developments including GM. The wording of the press release has been manufactured to give the impression that the findings of the study refer to the farming community as a whole -- and it was clearly the intention that the first sentence of the piece would be widely quoted by the media.

GM Free Cymru, a community group which specializes in the safety and environmental impacts of GM crops and foods, has seen the press release (1) and the initial OU research brief (2), and claims that £131,000 of public money has been expended over three years on an elaborate piece of pro-GM propaganda. "The research funding was awarded for a study of farmers' knowledge of GM and of their attitudes to the growing of GM crops," said spokesman Dr Brian John. "The brief maintained a pretence that the WHOLE of the farming community would be sampled -- and even if the researchers had been primary school children they would have worked out (a) that the sample needed to be quite large in order to give useful results, and (b) that stratified sampling would be needed, across many geographical locations, to take accounts of such groups as conventional farmers, organic farmers, industrial farmers and smallholders. Instead of that, the OU research team concentrated all of their efforts on 30 large-scale commodity farmers and their "associates" and "networks", whose pro-GM attitudes have been known for years -- and then dressed up their responses as somehow representative of the farming community."

And how were the 30 farmers chosen? By none other than SCIMAC and the NFU, two bodies which have for years been unashamedly promoting the virtues of GM at every opportunity (3). These two bodies were also involved in designing the research, in planning questioning strategies, and in assessing the responses of the 30 farmers. The NFU is also involved in promoting the research findings to the wider farming community. "I don't think I have ever seen such a blatantly manipulated piece of research," said Dr John. "It would be a simple matter to put this down to interference by the NFU and SCIMAC and to naivety on the part of the researchers. But we cannot believe that the OU and ESRC were unaware of what they were doing, or of the thoroughly dishonest contents of the press release (4). None of those involved were born yesterday, and it is obvious from the project publications that the objective of this research was the widespread "enabling" of GM crops in the UK." (5)

"What we see here is duplicity and deception on a substantial scale. The research has departed significantly from its apparently innocent brief, and it may be that the £131,000 grant was obtained under false pretences. Is the research actually fraudulent? That is something for ESRC to decide when it reads the published document. In our view, the report which is promoted through Sunday's press release is nothing more than crude GM pro-propaganda dressed up as serious science. It should be binned, and we as taxpayers should demand our money back."

Contact:

Dr Brian John
GM Free Cymru
Tel + 44 1239820470

Notes:

1. WHAT FARMERS THINK ABOUT GM CROPS EMBARGOED UNTIL 00:01HRS SUNDAY 24TH 2008

"Farmers are upbeat about genetically modified crops, according to new research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)..................."

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Professor Andy Lane Tel: 01908 332236; e-mail: A.B.Lane@open.ac.uk
Dr Sue Oreszczyn Tel: 01908 653433; e-mail: s.m.oreszczyn@open.ac.uk

ESRC Press Office:
Kelly Barnett on Tel: 01793 413032; e-mail: kelly.barnett@esrc.ac.uk
Danielle Moore on Tel: 01793 4133122; e-mail: danielle.moore@esrc.ac.uk

2. Grant value: £131,009.33
ESRC grant number: RES-151-25-0046
Open University
Environmental Planning/Planning
Substantive Research Contract
Award/Grant Name: Farmers' Understandings of Genetically Modified Crops within Local Communities
Award/Grant Holder: Professor Andrew Bertie Lane
Programme Name: Science in Society
Co-applicant(s): Dr S Carr, Dr Sue Oreszczyn
Start Date: 01/08/2004
End Date: 31/07/2007

3. "This report documents, in farmers' own words, the themes and issues that this first round of telephone interviews generated. Its purpose is to feed back some initial views so that the farmers interviewed, and the National Farmers' Union, and SCIMAC2, who are acting as advisors on this project and who proposed the names of the farmers for the interviews3, may add their own observations at an early stage." farmerstelephoneinterviewreport.pdf, OU, July 2005, by Dr Sue Oreszczyn http://technology.open.ac.uk/cts/esrcfarmer.htm See this: http://www.scimac.org.uk/ SCIMAC is the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops "SCIMAC is a grouping of industry organisations along the UK farm supply chain, established in 1998 to support the carefully managed introduction of GM crops in the UK."

4. The following were also involved in the study as workshop participants: ADAS UK Ltd, Broom's Barn, DEFRA, DuPont Frontier Agriculture Ltd, Ebbage Seeds, NFU, NIAB, Rothamsted Research, Syngenta Seeds Ltd, SCIMAC, Scottish Crop Research Institute, Syngenta, The Arable Group.

5. The researchers belong to the Biotechnology Policy Group at the OU Faculty of Technology. http://technology.open.ac.uk/cts/esrcfarmer.htm They are also associated with the INNOGEN project (ESRC Centre for Social and Economic Research on Innovation in Genomics) and with the INNOGEN Research Centre. On the INNOGEN web site: http://www.innogen.ac.uk/Research/Farmers-Understandings-of- Genetically-Modified-Crops-within-Loc this project is shown as a co-funded project. There is no information on the names of the other funders. The web page relating to the project "Farmers' Understandings of GM Crops within Local Communities" maintains the pretence that the farming community as a whole was being tested with relation to GM experience and attitudes; there is no mention at all of the fact that the research was skewed onto a very small sample of large-scale commodity farmers. This deception pervades all three published parts of the Report.

EU: Barroso to open 'Noah's Ark' for seeds

EU Observer, 22 February 2008. By Lisbeth Kirk.

Next week will mark the official opening of what has been referred to as both the 'Doomsday Vault' and more optimisically as the 'Noah's Ark' for seeds.

On Tuesday (26 February) European Commission President Jose Barroso and Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg are to attend a ribbon-cutting ceremony opening a seed vault ‚ a massive storehouse for food plant seeds that aims to preserve biodiversity in the face of global warming and natural disasters.

The Svalbard Global Seed Vault has been built to store 4.5 million different agricultural seed samples from around the world at -18 degrees Celsius.

"The seed vault is the perfect place for keeping seeds safe for centuries," said Cary Fowler, Executive Director of the Rome-based Global Crop Diversity Trust, which has helped establish the vault along with Norway and the Nordic Gene Bank.

"At these temperatures, seeds for important crops such as wheat, barley and peas can last for up to 10,000 years," he said.

The vault is hidden in a cave at the end of a 130-metre tunnel blasted into a frozen mountain near the Arctic town of Longyearbyen on the Norwegian island of Svalbard, which means 'cold coast'.

It is one of the most remote populated spots in the world, with as many polar bears as human beings estimated to live there. The local tourist guide advises visitors not just to always carry a gun when outside the village, but to know how to use it as well.

Standing the test

The seed house has been positioned so that neither a potential rise in sea level nor a melting of the permafrost would be considered a threat in the foreseeable future.

It even withstood a final unplanned test on Thursday (21 February), when the strongest earthquakes in Norwegian history hit the area. The research institute, NORSAR, measured the quake at 6.2 on the Richter Scale.

Seeds are already on their way to their Norwegian resting place from Colombia, Mexico, Canada, the Philippines, Syria, Nigeria, Pakistan, Kenya and many other countries.

"The shipment of the seeds is developing as planned," said Ola Westengen, operation manager of the seed vault.

Peru will be depositing several thousand numbers of potato seeds while some 30,000 samples of different beans, plus a number of grass species are en route from Colombia.

One of the biggest contributors will be the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines. It is the oldest and largest international agricultural research institute in Asia and will be shipping 70,000 different varieties of rice from 120 different countries to the deposit.

From within Europe, seeds are coming from the Netherlands and Germany.

Preserving the world's biodiversity

Storing seeds from food plants is seen as an essential part of the work of preserving the world's biodiversity and ensuring food for the foreseeable future.

The number of plant varieties used during the last 30 years of intensification of agriculture has dramatically decreased.

More than 7000 plant species have historically been used in human diets, but fewer than 150 species are used in modern agriculture today.

In Mexico, only 20 percent of the corn types recorded in 1930 can now be found, according to the Norwegian Ministry of Agricultures and Food.

The seed vault is owned by the Norwegian government which has also financed the construction work, costing nearly €6.5 million (NOK 50 million).

All depositors will retain the rights over their seeds. Access to the seeds will not be given without consent from the depositors, and seeds will be returned to the depositors on request.

Australia: GM-free: the way of the future

GLW (Issue #741), 22 February 2008. By Bob Phelps.

Foods from genetically manipulated (GM) crops and animals are rejected by most farmers, shoppers and food processors around the world. If these mutant foods were fully labelled, as they should be, consumer rejection would ensure that GM food crops were not grown.

The environmental, social, ethical and economic impacts of radical new GM technology outweigh any promised benefits. Federal agriculture minister Tony Burke claims GM crops may contribute to easing the impacts of global climate change and the drought. But the salt-tolerant GM crops that he says will be our saviour are at least a decade or two away, if they ever eventuate. These promised band-aids should not affect our decisions now.

Despite public opposition, in 2002 Australia's Office of Gene Technology Regulator issued licences for the unrestricted commercial release of herbicide-tolerant GM canola. With genes from soil bacteria inserted, these plants survive being sprayed with broad spectrum herbicides - either Roundup (Monsanto's plant killer) or Basta (Bayer's plant killer) - that would normally kill all plants. Farmers who use the patented GM seed can drench their fields with higher doses of weedicides, throughout the growing season.

Governments of all canola-growing states (Queensland and NT do not grow canola) used the powers given to them by Section 21 of the Commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000 to ban GM canola for marketing reasons. They had heard from the food industry that valuable export and local markets would be lost if GM crops were grown. For instance, 15% of the annual $5 billion wheat export market and $500 million in yearly barley exports to Saudi Arabia would have been cancelled. Little has changed.

By banning GM food crops, we also reaped the benefits of preferential access to valuable markets which pay up to $120/tonne extra for our food-grade GM-free canola. As Western Australia's agriculture minister Kim Chance said: "WA's GM-free canola is highly sought after in the world's most discriminating markets of Europe, Japan and, increasingly, China."

To their great credit, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the ACT are all committed to remaining GM-free for the foreseeable future. They listened to their communities and the whole food industry, finding that a majority favoured GM-free and its benefits.

In contrast, immediately after the federal election Victorian Premier John Brumby and NSW Premier Morris Iemma announced they would allow their state GM bans to expire on February 29 and March 3, 2008, respectively. GM canola seed would be sold for unrestricted planting in Victoria, while NSW would retain some control until 2011 with a state-based approval system. These governments listened only to the GM technology owners ó Bayer (the world's biggest agrochemical company) and Monsanto (the biggest commercial seed company) - and their agribusiness allies. These interests argued that farmers must have the "choice" to grow GM canola.

But this choice - by the 27% of farmers who say they want to grow GM - would take everyone else's choice away and increasingly deliver control of our food supply to the GM giants. Commercial GM canola releases will be permanent and irreversible. We'll be overrun by a plant version of the cane-toad that will exchange pollen with the common weeds wild radish, turnip and charlock, making super weeds that can never be recalled.

In allowing the GM bans to expire, Brumby and Iemma have not listened to public or parliamentary opinion. For instance, Coles and Foodland Supermarkets say over 90% of their customers want GM-free foods and their own brands will stay GM-free.

All Australian supermarkets, including Safeway/Woolworths, Aldi and IGA, should now go completely GM-free as British supermarkets did years ago, so their customers have real choice. Many backbench members of state parliaments are also arguing for GM-free, as thousands of their constituents tell them GM-free is the way to stay.

Numerous other companies publicly support extending the GM bans, including Goodman Fielder (Australia's biggest user of canola oil), Tatiara Meats (largest lamb exporter), Twynam Agricultural (grows GM cotton in Australia and GM soy in Argentina), Blue Lake Milling (Bordertown) and the Australian Grain Harvesters' Association. More than 250 smaller businesses and organisations have also signed a Gene Ethics statement of support for extending GM crop bans until 2013 (visit ).

GM canola is only grown in Canada and the US, and it was less than 20% of global canola production last year. Canada's exports of canola are sold at discount prices, mostly for animal feed and bio-fuels. In contrast, GM-free canola is grown in 18 countries, many of which are our valued customers in Asia and the European Union. Australia's GM-free canola oil fills the rapidly growing demand for food-grade product and our customers pay top dollar in a market where food, feed and fuels are now competing.

We'd be fools to side with our GM competitors against our GM-free customers, sacrificing our competitive edge and removing their GM-free choice. Japanese buyers recently wrote long-term contracts with Kangaroo Island (SA) growers for GM-free canola at good premiums to ensure GM-free supplies. Our GM-free grains, dairy foods and wines also enjoy a competitive advantage in local and global markets but GM canola would tarnish their reputation.

A Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) study warns that if GM crops were allowed here, GM-free producers would bear the extra costs of GM testing, segregation and market loss, estimated at 6-17% of the product's farm-gate value. Staying GM-free means no added costs for anyone.

The RIRDC concludes: "the average Australian farm household income would decrease with GM adoption - even with rice and wheat included - if the EU moratorium remains". No commercial GM rice or wheat exist and the EU's aversion to GM remains strong.

The 2007 annual global review of commercial GM crops by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) showed that GM crops stalled many years ago. In 1996, GM soy, corn, canola and cotton were launched, with two new traits ó tolerance to lethal weed killers or built-in Bt insect toxins. In 2008, just the same four crops and two traits are commercially available. Seven countries grew 97.5% of GM crops in 2007, the same as 2006. Five of those countries are in North or South America, where most GM crops are used for animal feed or biofuel production.

A few other countries dabble in GM crops but drop them when environmental, animal and human health impacts appear. Australias cotton crop shrank from 220,000 hectares in 2005, to 134,000 in 2006, to about 60,000 hectares last year. GM is responsible for cotton's collapse as this follows the lifting of the 30% cap on GM cotton in 2005, when GM's share shot to over 90%. The GM varieties seem poorly adapted to our drought conditions and a soil pathogen, fusarium wilt, has spread like wildfire through cotton since GM was introduced.

ISAAA inflates growth in the GM industry by double counting the hectares of GM crops where a plant contains two traits. The area of GM canola worldwide has not increased since 1999 and many North American farmers would give it up if there was an alternative. Terry Boehm of Canada's National Farmers Union recently told large Australian audiences that conventional GM-free seed was no longer available except from those individuals with the foresight to save it a decade ago when GM arrived.

It's not too late for all our governments to extend their GM bans. It's now up to local government, shoppers, farmers and the food industry to resist the GM invasion. A coalition of committed groups will continue to campaign for a GM-free future. Everyone has a role to play and your active support is welcome.

[Bob Phelps is executive director of Gene Ethics, founded in 1988 to conduct public education campaigns on GM issues. Visit http://www.geneethics.org, email info@geneethics.org or phone 1300 133 868.]

USA: Pioneer sees GMOs gaining global market acceptance

Reuters, 22 February 2008.

WASHINGTON, Feb 22 (Reuters) - Rising food prices will encourage worldwide acceptance of genetically engineered crops as more consumers set aside health concerns for the lower prices that biotech crops may deliver, a leading seed company executive said.

Governments that have been slow to accept biotech crops, or GMOs, will find it increasingly difficult to deny access to the technologies as food costs are poised to continue climbing.

"The only way we're going to meet some of these demand expectations that we have and are going to have in the future is through improved productivity. A lot of that productivity will come through technology," said Paul Shickler, president of Pioneer Hi-Bred International and vice president of DuPont Co.

U.S. food prices rose by a 17-year high of 4 percent last year and were seen rising by another 3 to 4 percent in 2008. Food inflation was expected to outpace the general inflation rate through 2010, the U.S. Agriculture Department forecast.

Global food prices have risen even faster and will continue to do so, economists said.

Current technologies that improve yields by protecting plants against insects or weed killing herbicides are "just the tip of the iceberg," he said on the sidelines of the USDA Agriculture Outlook Forum.

Future developments include soybeans that produce healthier oil or corn with more fermentable starch for ethanol production.

Consistent, rising yields

GMO seeds have increased corn output in the United States by about 1.5 percent over the past decade and products in Pioneer's pipeline could accelerate that rate of yield improvement to about 3 percent in the next 10 years, Shickler said.

Perhaps more importantly, GMO varieties offer more consistent, reliable yields, which farmers find highly valuable in the current volatile commodities market climate, he said.

"Farmers don't want to be surprised, particularly they don't want to have negative surprises," Shickler said.

"What's going to drive broader acceptance worldwide is the productivity factor, the environmental factor, competition among countries. It's not going to come from the seed industry demanding that they approve. The real demand is going to be driven by farmers," Shickler said.

Since biotech seeds tend to yield more grain per acre, less fuel is needed to plant and harvest the crop -- another selling point for seed companies amid sky-high energy prices.

GMO seeds are already broadly used in the United States, Argentina, and Brazil, and plantings are poised to increase in South Africa, China, India, Canada and elsewhere.

According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-business Applications, 22 countries planted biotech crops in 2006 on 252 million acres.

"With rising food prices globally, the benefits of biotech crops have never been more important," ISAAA said ahead of the release of its annual report on genetically modified crops.

More than 73 percent of corn planted in the United States last year was some form of GMO, according to USDA. Pioneer's Shickler said that could approach 90 percent this year.

Biotech crops have also started to gain a foothold in Europe, where critics have been especially vocal in the past, dubbing GMOs "Frankenfoods" whose risks outweigh any potential benefits.

Britain's chief scientific adviser said this week that genetically modified crops should be accepted as a possible solution to rising food demand and production issues linked to climate change. (Reporting by Karl Plume, editing by Matthew Lewis)

Italian maize growers want GM crops, survey says

Food Navigator, 22 February 2008. By Alex Nally.

The majority of maize growers in Italy would start growing genetically modified crops if a ban on their uses was lifted, a survey has found.

Conducted on behalf of the Italian association of biotechnology, Assobiotec, the poll adds to growing pressure on Brussels lawmakers to change their tune on GM foods.

Currently, there is an EU ban on cultivating GM maize for human consumption, but it is allowed for animal feed.

The survey sampled 532 farms in Lombardy. Coordinator Elisabetta Brambilla said: "The results show that the farmer base in Lombardy is open to innovation and biotechnology"

GM

The poll found:

•

74 per cent of farmers are also in favour of running field trials of GMs in Italy so as to better understand the benefits

•

80 per cent of maize growers agreed that "it is absurd to ban the cultivation of GMOs while allowing their import for feed"

•

75.9 per cent "feel unfairly penalised compared with farmers operating in other countries"

•

75.6 per cent consider GMs "an innovative agricultural instrument"

•

74.8 per cent of the farmers is that "farmers should be given the freedom to choose what to produce".

Hope

President of Assobiotec, Roberto Gradnik, said: "We hope that those responsible for the legislative framework in Italy will finally end the ideological hostility against GMs and allow the benefits to be felt in Italy as well, starting with allowing field trials in the country.

"This is no longer a request of industry alone, farmers are demanding the freedom to choose as well."

Warning

The United States is a major user of GM crops. Earlier this year, industry trade groups in the country warned there could be "massive retaliation" on Europe if the bloc does not speed up a system for approving GM crops.

Austria enforced a ban on the import and processing of Monsanto's MON810 and Bayer's T25 maize in June 1999.

The Commission has been debating whether to force the country to lift its restrictions since 2005, as Austria has never produced the necessary scientific evidence to contest the positive assessment of the products by Europe's food safety authorities.

In 2003 the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ruled that some European countries were breaking international trade rules by stopping the import of GM foods and crops.

21 February 2008

USA: The Biggest Beef Recall Ever

The New York Times (Editorial), February 21 2008.

A nauseating video of cows stumbling on their way to a California slaughterhouse has finally prompted action: the largest recall of meat in American history. Westland/Hallmark Meat Company has issued a full recall of more than 143 million pounds of beef produced over the last two years, including 37 million pounds that went to school-lunch programs.

A lot of that beef has already been eaten, and so far, thankfully, there have been no reports of illness. But the question Congress needs to ask is how many people need to get sick or die before it starts repairing and modernizing the nation's food safety system?

Instead of strengthening the government's regulatory systems, the Bush administration has spent years cutting budgets and filling top jobs with industry favorites. The evidence of their failures keep mounting: contaminated spinach, poisoned pet food, tainted fish.

At Westland/Hallmark, the latest horrors were secretly videotaped by the Humane Society of the United States, which said it had chosen the plant at random. The video showed workers kicking and using forklifts to force so-called "downer" cows to walk. The government has banned the sale of meat from most of these cows.

Officials have been busy assuring consumers that this massive recall is an "aberration." "Whistling in the dark" - that is how Caroline Smith DeWaal of the Center for Science in the Public Interest describes such assurances. "The fact that they have failed here so miserably makes you start to question what else is going on that we don't know about."

The Westland/Hallmark plant had five federal inspectors on hand, including at least one veterinarian whose job was to make sure that diseased cows did not make it into the meat supply. But where were these inspectors when workers were abusing these poor animals in order to get them to the slaughterhouse? Investigations have already begun in California and Washington.

Whatever the outcome with this particular plant, the larger point is that Congress needs to overhaul the entire food inspection program. That includes giving the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration more power to demand mandatory recalls. Food producers should be able to track their supplies in order to more quickly root out problems. And foreign suppliers would have to create and implement a workable food safety plan that can be monitored better by federal inspectors.

The present patchwork of modest fines and penalities must also be stiffened.

Senator Richard Durbin and Representative Rosa DeLauro have a more ambitious idea: creating a single, powerful agency to oversee all food safety, instead of the current bureaucratic tangle of inspectors, some for vegetables, some for beef and some for imports. Right now the Agriculture Department oversees the safety of the home-grown beef supply (while also promoting the cattle industry) and the Food and Drug Administration monitors the safety of cattle feed. With Americans increasingly ó and legitimately ó mistrustful of the food they eat, their proposal is worth serious consideration.

EU: Campaigners reject claims GM answer to food prices

FoodNavigator, 21 February 2008. By Laura Crowley.

Europe must scrap its biofuel targets to combat the upward spiral of food prices, say green campaigners, discarding claiming that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are the answer.

The increase in raw material costs has given GMO advocates the opportunity to argue its benefits, alleging increased yields and reduced pesticide use.

"The vultures have landed on the food prices issue," Clare Oxborrow, Friends of the Earth GM campaigner, told FoodNavigator.com.

"They say GM crops will feed the world, with increased yields meaning increased income. But there is no evidence that genetic modification will benefit yields."

Food prices

FoodNavigator.com reported yesterday on this week's National Farmer's Union (NFU) Conference, where Iain Ferguson, chief executive of Tate & Lyle, said British food prices are rising at their fastest rate since records began.

He quoted the Daily Telegraph as saying food prices in the UK are fuelling a rise in the average family's annual shopping bill of GBP750.

The food industry has already experienced massive price hikes for raw materials across the board, which have been blamed on poor weather affecting stock and production, and high fuel costs - both biofuels and oil.

Ferguson said the answer for this growing problem is fostering scientific debate on the application of genetic modification, which can increase yields and cut costs.

However, Friends of the Earth says a better way to eliminate one of the causes by cutting back on biofuels.

Scrap biofuels

Europe currently has targets to expand the use of biofuels, gas fuel derived from biomass, to 10 per cent.

Oxborrow said: "We are calling on the EU to scrap its targets for biofuels which are driving up food prices and damaging the environment. And governments around the world must urgently invest in sustainable farming methods which meet local environmental and social needs".

She said the targets are one of the main reasons for the increase in price hikes, as farmers have stopped cultivating crops such as soy to fill their fields with biofuel products. This means less crops and feed on the market, creating shortages and pushing up prices.

"Although food prices have always fluctuated, the recent squeeze has been kick started by biofuels," said Oxborrow.

Biofuels were meant to be the greener alternative, but in fact, Friends of the Earth said they are having a detrimental effect on the environment

For example, in November, it emerged that major food companies are contributing to increased carbon emissions through the destruction of Indonesia's peat swamp forests to produce palm oil to use as a greener alternative to conventional petrol and diesel.

Last month, an unpublished report by the EU's Joint Research Council, called "Biofuels in the European Context" was leaked.

It raised questions over the true benefit of biofuels on the environment, claiming that biofuel targets may actually yield no greenhouse gas savings. It also said it may be more efficient to focus on other renewable energies, such as biomass for heat and power generation.

Other strategies Friends of the Earth has suggested for combating price hikes are:

•

Help the EU livestock industry to source GM free animal feed

•

Support countries such Argentina and Brazil to establish assessment procedures comparable to international guidelines and the EU's own standards

•

Develop strict traceability and liability systems whereby the biotech company pays and not the livestock importer, farmer or consumer

GM not the answer

At the NFU Conference and in a report issued by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) earlier this month, claims were made that GM crops can increase yield.

Friends of the Earth argues the opposite. It said first generation genetic modification addresses production conditions and has not been modified to increase yield.

It backed up its argument with a 2003 report published in Science, which states that "in the United States and Argentina, average yield effects [of GM crops] are negligible and in some cases even slightly negative."

"GM crops often need more pesticides, provide lower yields and cause widespread contamination," said Oxborrow.

EU: Approval of GMO crops: US and EU seek agreement, EU farmers' associations press for speed

GMO Compass, 21 February 2008.

To resolve conflict caused by the ban on genetically modified crops in the European Union, diplomatic discussions have begun between the USA and the EU. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has declared the ban to be illegal but the practical and administrative consequences of this ruling remain open. In the meanwhile, European farmers' organisations warn of falling behind.

Due to the ban, the USA has declared lost revenue totalling millions of dollars in Europe. Stating a wish to unlock the EU market to GM crops, the USA requested mediation from the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of the WTO. In the context of current negotiations, arbitration has been suspended. However, American diplomats have spoken of reopening the procedure as a possible response in case of faulty European implementation of the WTO ruling.

While acceptance and use of genetically modified crops are increasing globally, European consumers historically have viewed biotechnology with suspicion. Local marketing strategies often reflect this attitude.

Copa-Cogeca, an umbrella organisation representing farmers across the EU, has criticised such attitudes and spoken of potential ruin for European agriculture. The organisation reproves the slowness of the EU approval procedure for GMOs, particularly in light of increased international use of such crops and current record prices for commodities.

A recent stalemate in the authorisation of five GM crops by the European Council is used as an example. By law, the European Commission now has assumed decisive responsibility for approval of the crops, all of which are intended for use in animal feed in the EU. Copa-Cogeca spokesman Simon Michel-Berger is quoted by the "Financial Times" in February as stating that "...it takes two to four years to approve a GM crop in Europe, fifteen months in the US. We cannot compete." Due to feed costs having risen by 50 per cent, the failure of up to twenty per cent of pig producers, for example, may be predicted for 2008.

Inconsistency between Member States and national GMO bans also have hindered the uniform application of the WTO ruling in the EU. The EU stated that its executive commission is working to lift bans imposed by Austria on MON810 maize and on T25 maize. The commission is currently assessing scientific data provided by Austria to support its ban and is reviewing a decision this month by France, the EU's biggest food producer, to impose a temporary ban on MON810.

However, the Union has informed the WTO that seventeen applications for the use of GMOs have been approved since 2003 and that four approvals are expected early this year. American diplomats have stated in response, "A handful of approvals over a nine-year period is, unfortunately, of little significance." Ý

The next green revolution

The Economist, 21 February 2008.

Europe may not like it, but genetic modification is transforming agriculture

FOR a decade Europe has rebuffed efforts by biotechnology firms such as America's Monsanto to promote genetically modified crops. Despite scientific assurances that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are safe for human consumption, and a ruling by the World Trade Organisation against national import bans in the European Union, many Europeans have yet to touch or taste them. But that may soon change, according to Iain Ferguson, boss of Tate & Lyle, a British food giant. "We sit at a moment of history when GM technology...is a fact of life," he said this week.

Mr Ferguson, who is also the head of Britain's Food and Drink Federation, argues that because many large agricultural exporters have adopted GMOs, it is becoming expensive to avoid them. Copa-Cogeca, a farmers' lobby, this week warned that the rising cost of feed could wipe out Europe's livestock industry unless bans on GMOs are lifted. Meanwhile, European agriculture ministers failed to agree on whether to allow imports of GM maize and potatoes; the decision will now be made by the European Commission, which is likely to say yes.

If it does, it will be a victory for Monsanto. But the firm is already enjoying an even sweeter form of revenge: huge commercial success. It has had three straight years of revenue and profit growth, and on February 12th it raised its profit forecast for the fiscal year for the second time in two months. Monsanto made a profit of $993m in the year to August, on revenues of $8.6 billion. The global commodity-price boom helps (see article), but Brett Begemann, a senior executive at Monsanto, insists that it is the firm's advances in GMO technology that are fetching premium prices and will help it to double profits by 2012.

The firm's fortunes have been boosted by the success of GMOs outside Europe. A new report from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), a non-profit outfit that tracks industry trends, charts the dramatic growth in the 12 years that GMOs have been commercially available. The area under cultivation increased by 12% last year, to 114m hectares globally. America topped the list, but there is rapid growth in Argentina, Brazil, India and China (see map). Thomas West of Pioneer Hi-Bred, a division of DuPont, says Europe should get on board, as "the train is leaving the station."

According to Cropnosis, an industry consultancy, the market for agricultural biotechnology grew from about $3 billion in 2001 to over $6 billion in 2006, and is expected to reach $8.4 billion by 2011. Hans Kast, chief executive of Germany's BASF Plant Science, thinks the figure could reach $50 billion by 2025, as a second generation of GMO technology, now in the pipeline, reaches the market.

Proponents of GMOs are optimistic because a confluence of social, commercial and technological forces is boosting the case for the technology. As India and China grow richer, the world is likely to need much more food, just as arable land, water and energy become scarcer and more expensive. If they fulfil their promise, GMOs offer a way out of this bind, providing higher yields even as they require less water, energy and fertiliser. Early incarnations of the technology, such as Monsanto's Roundup Ready maize and soyabeans, were genetically engineered to be resistant to herbicides and pesticides, making it easier for farmers to control pests without damaging crops. The second generation will have further traits, such as drought resistance, "stacked" on top. Michael Mack, chief executive of Switzerland's Syngenta, reckons that farmers will pay extra for these new features.

Moore's law for maize

Indeed, farmers can expect ever-faster cycles of product upgrades, thinks David Fischhoff, a senior executive at Monsanto. He likens the industry's situation to the early days of the personal computer, now that the underlying technology is in place. Monsanto predicts that the yield from maize grown in America, which has doubled since 1970, can double again by 2030. Mr Mack draws a similar analogy. "Like in the software industry," he says, "intellectual-property rights give our technology value." Farmers paying big licence fees to use the new technology would no doubt agree. But just as with software, GMOs suffer from piracy. In Argentina and China, the hostile stance toward intellectual-property rights has been blessed by the government itself.

The dirty little secret of the software industry, however, was that companies quietly tolerated some piracy on the basis that once customers went legal, they would probably stick with the products they were already using. The same may be happening with GMOs. Ask Syngenta's boss if he is worried about piracy, and he answers "yes and no". As countries grow richer or embrace WTO rules, he says, their farmers will start paying. Argentina has already headed in that direction, he reckons, and last year his firm set up a joint venture with a Chinese biotechnology centre. The most important reason to think that GMOs have a brighter future, however, comes not from any of the benefits they offer farmers, large though those will be. The big difference with the next generation of technology, argues Mr West of Pioneer Hi-Bred, is that it will also provide benefits to consumers. As an example, he points to his firm's high-oleic soyabean oil, which it expects to have on the market in 2009. Through genetic manipulation, he claims, his firm's researchers have been able to improve soya oil so that it tastes better, is healthier and produces no trans-fats during cooking.

Could such an innovation even persuade sceptical Europeans? The lack of consumer benefits with first-generation GMOs made it easy for activists to whip up opposition. But if future products offer things consumers want, such as healthier food, and address problems that European regulators are worried about, such as obesity and climate change, then GMOs may yet have their day in Europe.

Ireland: Fear and loathing in GM debate

Anti-GM lobby takes on scientists as students air a subject so controversial that many seem to want to avoid it. Berni Dwan reports from Trinity College on the first major debate in Ireland in 10 years on genetic modification

Irish Examiner farm supplement, 21 February 2008.

It may be one of the most important issues for Irish agriculture and consumers. But the first major debate in Ireland in 10 years on genetic modification wasn't launched by a government, farming or consumer body. Instead we owe a debt of gratitude to "The Hist" in Trinity College, Dublin, for the latest airing of views on GM.

The relatively small attendance in Trinity's Graduate Memorial Building in Dublin's city centre was hardly representative of the many sectors for whom this is a vital subject.

Notwithstanding, the motion "that genetically modified food should be considered safe to eat and ethical to produce", was defeated 31 to 43.

At one level, it was a debate about sensible science solving world hunger and poverty, opposing "tree hugging" protesters who have "closed minds" when it comes to gene meddling or DNA tweaking of any kind. At another level, some of the better known examples of genetically modified food - tomatoes with fish genes, potatoes with spider genes, and rice with human genes - were identified as "Frankenfood".

As I sat in the hallowed surroundings I was reminded of De Selby's Atomic Theory in Flann O'Brien's The Third Policeman. Rather than O'Brien's man becoming more bicycle, or vise versa, would GM tomatoes start swimming around the kitchen sink, GM potatoes start weaving webs, or GM rice reasonably refuse to be cooked in boiling water.

Groups like GM-free Ireland argue that GM crops could be genetically unstable, and that they will inevitably contaminate traditional crops by wind blown pollen and seed dispersal. There is the well-documented case of the Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser who faced a patent infringement lawsuit and - incredibly lost ownership of his seeds and crops - after contamination by Monsanto's GM seeds. EU and Irish law offers no protection to Irish farmers whose crops could potentially be contaminated in this way.

You could take the laissez faire view that what you don't know won't kill you. But, if all the genetically engineered products in the supermarket were boldly labelled as such, we would probably avoid them more from fear and uncertainty than informed choice. We do not generally realise that most livestock products we eat come from animals fed grain from GM crops. Or that soya, probably the most genetically modified crop in the world, is in a lot of "healthy" products.

Despite our hesitancy to include genetically engineered food in our diet, there is no scientific proof that GM crops have any adverse effects on the human body or the environment. Are they, for example, more damaging to the environment than intensive farming technology? GM crops remain a great unknown, simply because they just haven't been around long enough. But if you were an African farmer trying to combat the parasitic weed, striga, that has infested 2.5 million hectares of maize, you would doubtless welcome the development of herbicide-resistant and striga-tolerant maize varieties.

So who should we listen to? On one side you have the scientists who throw their hands and eyes heavenward in utter despair, at what they perceive as scare mongering 'green' protesters who base their arguments on mere hearsay. Some observers might describe the scientists as arrogant, while some might describe the green protesters as misguided. In there you also have the companies such as Monsanto, BASF and Syngenta, who modify and patent GM seeds.

And we cannot ignore the fact that three of the world's leading GM producing countries - the USA, Canada and Argentina - are pushing the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to force the EU to accept GM crops as an inevitable development. The Irish Government, in collaboration with the Northern Ireland Assembly, aims to declare the island of Ireland as GMO-free zone, rendering it off limits to genetically modified seeds, crops, trees, crustaceans, fish, poultry and livestock. But this policy does not affect the use of GM bacteria for the production of medicine in secure laboratories, of the use of imported GM maize and soya animal feed still used by most cattle, sheep and pig farmers.

Many EU member states, including Ireland, are delaying approval of grain imports for animal feeding because they come from genetically modified crops. As a result, EU livestock farmers are incurring higher production costs, and are worried that their usual feed sources may be severely curtailed next year. Otherwise, farmers are happy to go along with the EU ban on growing GM crops other than the few which are approved, principally maize modified to resist corn borer pest found in Mediterranean climates.

Notwithstanding, a number of genetically modified consumer foods are approved in the EU.

For Michael O'Callaghan, co-ordinator of the GM-free Ireland Network, it's a matter of personal responsibility for citizens. He voiced a preference for civilised conversation rather than 'macho' debating, but nevertheless delivered his speech from the ballot box, opposing the motion. Referring to claims by the GM industry as propaganda, he concluded that it was not scientifically possible, given our current knowledge, to claim that there is no risk. "Everyone eats food, but a handful of transnational companies have control over 50% of seeds," he said. "It is the largest racket we can conceive of." With a market demand in Europe for GM free food, O'Callaghan stated, Ireland, because of our geographical isolation and clean green image, is in a unique position because we don't use much imported feed.

Speaking for the motion, Lord Taverne, Liberal Democrat peer and founder of Sense About Science, alluded to the importance of evidence, stating that when it comes to understanding the GM debate, he would rather consult plant biologists and geneticists than the likes of Greenpeace. He reminded the audience that not a single plant scientist has been found to date who says that GM food is unsafe.

"GM crops are no more harmful to the environment than conventionally grown crops, and the World Health Organisation have also come to this conclusion," he said. One a more lighthearted note, he referred to the fact that people in the United States have been eating GM food for the past 10 years without a single law case.

For Lord Taverne, the main concerns in the GM debate are hunger, poverty and disease. Ten million small-scale farmers are growing GM cotton which does not have to be sprayed with insecticides. "This decrease in the use of chemicals," said Taverne, "makes GM technology a green technology."

Golden rice is a crop which addresses the vitamin A deficiency common in much of the developing world, a deficiency that causes blindness. "Golden rice can fix this problem," says Lord Taverne, "yet Greenpeace oppose it. Who is more ethical? I don't refuse antibiotics because pharmaceutical companies make profits."

It's a given that we need an enormous increase in food production to tackle world hunger, and for Lord Taverne, this would seem to be the technological food fix. "By rejecting this technology, which can help reduce poverty, latter day Luddites are guilty of a crime against humanity," he said.

Speaking against the motion, Michael Hanson [the correct spelling is Hansen] of the Consumers' Union in the US acknowledged that the Food and Drug Authority (FDA) found a reduction in the use of pesticides between 1996 and 1998, but an increase in their use was reported between 1998 and 2004.

Speaking against the motion, Green Party health spokeswoman Deirdre de Burca expressed concern about the premature nature of GM technology, since there are no longitudinal studies to prove its safety. "GM technology undermines conventional methods of farming and organic farming. It's imprecise and unpredictable, and the 'feed the world' argument is false and misleading", she said. Ms de Burca also expressed her concern about the co-existence model being fundamentally flawed. "The only official safety assessments are carried out by companies, but there are no independent government studies. There is no system in place to protect farmers from contamination, and insurance companies have refused to provide cover to date. There is no demand from consumers, and once GM crops are released into the environment there is no going back."

The challenge of tackling world hunger was also uppermost in the mind of Professor David McConnell, Head of TCD's School of Genetics. Speaking for the motion, he voiced his dismay at the Green attitude. With over 35 years involvement in genetics research, Professor McConnell was emphatic that genetic engineering is not an imprecise science, accusing its opponents of having closed minds.

He alluded to the dramatic changes in medicine, and how GM crops like papaya and golden rice have changed the lives of small farmers in the developing world. "GM papaya re-introduced papaya plantations to Hawaii, while the vitamin A in golden rice is helping to combat blindness."

The world population in 2000 was six billion. By 2050 it will be nine billion. "We must double, if not treble, food production on the same amount of land to meet this huge humanitarian challenge," said Professor McConnell. "There is no reason to expect that new GM plants will cause any damage to the environment. There is not a single case to date concerning harm to a person or animal," he said.

At the end of the proceedings, two important observations emerged from the chair. Regulation is largely left up to industry, and there is a little nervousness about sending something to the developing world that we are not sure about ourselves.

Photo caption 1:

For and against: speakers on the motion 'that genetically modified food should be eaten and produced', at the Trinity College Historical Society debate, from left, TCD school of genetics head Professor David McConnell, US Consumers Union research associate Michael Hansen, and (inset) Senator Deirdre de Burca, Green Party spokeswoman on health, and Michael O'Callaghan of GM-Free Ireland.

Photo caption 2:

Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland, Green Party senator Deirdre de Burca, and US Consumers Union senior research associate Michael Hansen vote against the motion 'that genetically modified food is safe to eat and ethical to produce' at the Trinity debate.

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

Whilst reasonably balanced overall, the above article contains numerous factual errors, significant omissions, and unquestioned claims.

•

The article's subtitle falsely presents this as a debate between the "anti-GM lobby" and scientists. In reality, the only two scientists involved – Dr. Michael Hansen and Prof David McConnell – spoke for and against the motion.

•

The article's coverage of what the two scientists said is clearly biased in favour of the biotech industry, with 84% (158 words) given to Prof David McConnell on the pro-GMO side, and only 16% (30 words) to Dr. Michael Hansen on the GM-free side.

•

Lord Dick Taverne is a biotech industry lobbyist, not a scientist.

•

Prof David McConnell is a professional biotech industry lobbyist as well as a scientist. He is the the Co-ordinator and Co-Vice Chairman of European Action on Global Life Sciences (http://www.efb-central.org/eagles) along with former World Bank V.P. Ismael Serageldin. EAGLES is an initiative of the European Federation of Biotechnology lobby group funded by the industry, designed to secure EU funding for European biotech companies to promote GM food and farming in the developing countries.

•

Dr. Michael K. Hansen is a Senior Staff Scientist at the Policy and Advocacy Division of the US Consumers Union, not a "research associate" as stated in the article. He holds a Phd in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. He also represents Consumers International, a federation of more than 250 organisations in 110 countries, at international fora on food issues including Codex Alimentarius, the UN scientific body which sets global standards for food safety, which are recognised by the World Trade Organisation. He served on the USDA Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology from 1998-2002, and on the California Department of Food and Agriculture Food Biotechnology Advisory Committee, from 2001-2002. In 2003 he was appointed to the Joint Consultation on Genetically Engineered Animals organised by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation and the World Health Organisation. Dr. Hansen has testified at hearings in Washington, D.C., many states, and Canada, and has prepared comments on many proposed U.S. governmental rules and regulations on food safety issues.

•

The pro-GM side was thus represented by the heads of two major biotech industry lobby groups (and a student whom the article fails to mention), whereas the anti-GM side was represented by a scientist, a campaigner, and an elected politician (along with two students and Trevor White, the publisher of the Dubliner magazine, all of whom the article failed to mention).

•

The article falsely claims "there is no scientific proof that GM crops have any adverse effects on the human body or the environment". It also quotes Professor McConnell saying "There is no reason to expect that new GM plants will cause any damage to the environment. There is not a single case to date concerning harm to a person or animal".

In reality, numerous scientific papers have identified 65 different GM health risks, as reported in the book "Genetic Roulette: the documented health risks of genetically engineered food", by Jeffrey M. Smith, with an introduction by Michael Meacher, MP (on sale at the Cultivate Centre, 15-19 Essex St. West, Temple Bar, Dublin 8, tel (01) 674 5773. Also available by mailorder from http://www.geneticroulette.com). Moreover, no long-term health studies have ever been conducted to prove that GM food and animal feed are safe.

Known environmental impacts of GM crops include contamination incidents in 40 countries, GM superweeds, increased use of weedkiller and pesticides, negative effects on soil bacteria, wildlife, and loss of biodiversity.

•

The article fails to question Professor McConnell's assertion "that genetic engineering is not an imprecise science". In reality, most GM crops have scrambled genomes (DNA damage) as a direct result of the random method of transgene insertion. See "Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications" by Allison K. Wilson, Jonathan R. Latham, and Ricarda A. Steinbrecher, Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews ‚ Vol. 23, December 2006 0264-8725/07/23/209-237: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/health/BSR-2-BGERvol23.pdf

This scientific paper concludes:

"The assumption that transgenic plant breeding methods are precise is undermined by the available scientific data. Transformation-induced mutations are created both at the transgene insertion-site and elsewhere in the genome. Most transgenic plants are likely to have both types of mutations, whether transformed using Agrobacterium-mediated methods or particle bombardment. Insertion-site mutations can include small or large deletions and rearrangements of plant genomic DNA and multiple insertions of superfluous DNA at a single insertion event. Rearrangements may include chromosomal translocations and extensive scrambling of transgenic and genomic DNA, while superfluous DNA insertions may include filler DNA, vector backbone and additional transgene DNA. Particle bombardment insertion events may also include contaminating bacterial chromosomal DNA. In addition to insertion-site mutations, most transgenic plants carry minimally 100s-1000s of genome-wide mutations, unless these have been removed by out-crossing or back-crossing.

Ireland: GM crops grown on 2.6% of the world's farmlands

Irish Examiner farm supplement, 21 February 2008.

What are GM crops? They are crops which have had DNA, or foreign genes, from other plants, animals, viruses or bacteria inserted into them.

What are genetically modified organisms or GMOs? The original DNA of the crop has been modified for a specific reason - to make it weed-killer resistant, or to enable it to produce its own pesticides.

GM crops are grown on 2.6% of the world's farmland, and 99% of the crops are grown in nine of the world's 230 countries. At a recente meeting in Oslo, Norway, delegates met to discuss establishing inernational guidelines for disclosing on food product labels whether or not a food was genetically modified.

The National Health Federation (NHF), the only health-freedom organisation with the right to attend and have its voice heard at these meetings, sent a delegation to argue for the right of all persons to know what they are consuming, especially if it is GM food.

The United States, Argentina, Canada and Mexico took the position that consumers should not be informed whether they are eating GM foods or not.

EU member states, including Austria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy and Sweden, strongly opposed hiding such information from the consumer.

Ireland: Fuel v food dangerous battle

Irish Examiner farm supplement, 21 February 2008. By Stephen Cadogan.

The importance of properly co-ordinating EU policies on renewable fuels and agriculture cannot be over-estimated.

US poultry producers have put the potential food-fuel conflict well. They say a 20-gallon vehicle fuel tank filled with E10, a 90% petrol and 10% ethanol blend, requires enough maize to feed a 25-pound turkey or seven five-pound broilers.

Universal use of an 85% ethanol and 15% petrol fuel blend in the US is not inconceivable ó even though it would consume almost all of the world's grain supply.

Biofuels from grain, oil seeds and sugar are drawing away food supplies, even as the population of the world expands by 70 million a year.

And forecasts that crude oil will cost $105 a barrel by the end of 2008 will drive on biofuel production.

It could come down to food versus fuel here too. Our national bioenergy conference recently heard that, by 2030, it will be possible to meet the EU-27 energy demand of up to 20% of all energy from biomass and biogenic waste, without harming the environment or competition with production of food or feed.

As part of energy and climate change measures being prepared in the EU, Ireland will be required by 2020 to get 16% of energy from renewable sources, use biofuels for 10% of transport, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20%.

Agriculture will be an important source of bioenergy feedstocks to help achieve these targets, with the help of steadily increasing grant aid. For example, Teagasc experts say 70,000 hectares of willow and miscanthus will be required by 2015, to meet electricity and heat targets in Ireland.

Those hoping for the most environmentally friendly scenario say renewables could provide up to 75% of world energy needs in the long term.

They include, for example, drivers in Sweden, where ethanol cars have increased from 5,000 in 2004 to nearly 70,000 in 2007.

However, those who make these predictions may have little understanding of agriculture.

They include politicians and world leaders who seem happy to bargain away intensive farming in the EU in world trade talks, in return for lowering of non-food trade barriers.

They seem happy to leave food production entirely dependent on global supply and demand swings ó even when oil depletion and famine threaten. They presumably think food production can be turned on and off like a tap to suit the markets.

Current record high food prices show how stupid that thinking is ó and potentially disastrous.

So much can go wrong when governments try to manipulate agriculture. For example, China's worst snow in 50 years recently brought fears of a return of that country's widespread starvation in the 1960s.

China now determines many global trends; if it continues to develop and produce more cars, demand for oil will continue to soar, putting further indirect pressure on agricultural biofuel capacity.

That capacity is limited by water availability more than any other single factor. Fuel crops like maize require a lot of water, and biofuel expansion may push global water resources to the limit. There are many things that can go wrong, and it is the world's poor who will feel the effects first. Already, they have to pay 35% more for their cereal imports, a heavy burden on developing countries, according to the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organisation, who point out that significant increases in production of more than one season's global cereal crop are needed to stabilise markets and bring prices down significantly. There's less chance of that happening if biofuel cropping expands.

Back in the US, many believe the government's use of tariffs and farm subsidies to boost ethanol production is a huge mistake, driving up the cost of food while having no effect on the cost of fuel.

Ethanol is about 25% less fuel economical than petrol. Meanwhile, Brazil burns more forest to grow more soya beans, to replace acres taken up by maize in the US.

The deforestation effect negates any environmental benefit from ethanol.

Farmers may be laughing all the way to the bank, but the stakes are huge if the global plan don't work out.

Ireland: EPA says switch to biofuel

Irish Examiner farm supplement, 21 February 2008. By Stephen Cadogan.

A SWITCH from cattle and sheep to producing biofuel crops instead has been recommended by an Environmental Protection Agency expert.

"If farmers switched to producing biofuels the rural economy could be invigorated", Dr Padraic Larkin told the Oireachtas Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security.

He said agriculture produces 28% of Ireland's greenhouse gas, twice the global average, and farmers and the state can reduce these emissions through production of timber, willow, miscanthus and grass. He emphasised the latter because Ireland is renowned for grass growing on 91% of our agricultural land. "Grass can be used as a fuel and to produce biomethane," said Dr Larkin.

Asked by Bobby Aylward TD, if we should switch from more traditional forms of farming, Dr Larkin said there is plenty of room for dairy farming, "If a certain percentage of farmers switched to renewable fuels, a win-win situation would ensue, as lowering the number of ruminant animals leads to a reduction in methane. Using the grass those animals would have eaten to create a fuel to replaces fossil fuels would result in a gain."

Dr Larkin is the EPA deputy director general, and director of the Agency's office of climate, licensing and resource use.

20 February 2008

USA: Beef recall reminder to resist biotech foods and hormones

The Forum, February 20 2008. By Dean Hulse.

Coincidentally, an announcement concerning the nation's largest beef recall occurred on the same day that Bruce Freitag's letter to the editor ("No time to roll dice on crops") ran in The Forum. What's the connection? In a word: food. More specifically, food made possible via biotechnology.

Westland/Hallmark Meat Co., based in Chino, Calif., recalled 143 million pounds of ground beef, some of which went to school lunch programs. This recall is part of an animal-abuse scandal that started after the Humane Society of the United States made public a video showing workers kicking sick cows and using forklifts to force the animals to walk.

The animals in the Humane Society video were dairy cows, so-called downer cows that could not walk and are therefore banned from the U.S. food supply.

While I can't know for certain how old those sick animals were, there;s a fair chance those cows were about 5 years old. That's young for dairy cows, only a year or so after the animals have acquired a full set of adult teeth. Dairy cows typically can live between 10 and 20 years.

So what might have happened in California?

Many factory-style dairies inject cows with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), which is a genetically engineered copy of a naturally occurring hormone produced by cows. While I don't claim to know why the animals in the Humane Society video got sick, animals injected with rBGH can suffer from increased udder infections (mastitis), severe reproductive problems, digestive disorders, foot and leg ailments, and persistent sores and lacerations ‚ which can add up to an early death.

The manufacturer of rBGH is Monsanto Co., which markets this product under the brand name Posilac. On its Web site, Monsanto offers the following: "Of the nearly nine million dairy cows in the United States, approximately one-third are in herds supplemented with Posilac." (http://www.monsantodairy.com/about/general_info/index.html)

While rBGH is banned in Europe and Canada, the three U.S. agencies charged with regulating genetically engineered foods ‚ the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture ‚ continue to license the product, despite concerns regarding adequate independent, peer-reviewed food safety tests.

There are similar concerns about the lack of long-term food safety tests for the crops Freitag is convinced will feed the world.

Furthermore, the lack of regulatory oversight is as problematic for genetically engineered crops as it is for animals injected with rBGH.

Meanwhile, Freitag's argument ignores this critical fact: Countries that are net exporters of food ‚ including the U.S. ‚ still haven't eliminated hunger at home, even with the "tools" of biotechnology.

Why? Because poverty is the primary cause of worldwide hunger.

Rolling the dice on biotech food is the gamble, and under this scenario, the "house" is represented by the agribusiness corporations.

For those interested in viewing the Humane Society's video or in listening to an account of how rBGH came to market, check out the following: www.hsus.org/acf/www.youtube.com/watch?vtrWcqxrQgcc&NR1

Hulse lives in Fargo.

EU: Failure on GM crops could ruin livestock industry, EU farmers warn

Financial Times, 20 February 2008.

Europe's livestock industry could be decimated without greater use of genetically modified crops, farmers warned yesterday after European Union agriculture ministers failed yet again to agree whether to allow imports of five biotech crops intended for animal feed.

The European Commission, the bloc's executive, is entitled to rubber-stamp the applications to import four types of maize and one type of potato into the EU.

However, Copa-Cogeca, which represents the EU's farmers, said that with feed prices rising and suppliers in the Americas increasingly planting GM seeds, the industry faced ruin without a speedier approval process. Approvals must first go to national governments, which rarely agree.

"It takes two to four years to approve a GM crop in Europe, 15 months in the US. We cannot compete," said Simon Michel-Berger, Copa-Cogeca's spokesman.

Pig rearers are already struggling, he said. Feed costs have risen by 50 per cent but prices have fallen 8 per cent. Without help - including export refunds and subsidised storage - up to a fifth of producers could give up by the end of the year.

David Hill, of the EU biotech farmers' network, said poultry production was increasingly moving to Thailand and Brazil. He said there were 18 crops awaiting approval for cultivation and 49 for import, and farmers were frustrated by the delay.

The EU has approved only about a dozen crops amid consumer fears of so-called "Frankenfoods". Just one, an insect-resistant maize, can be planted in the EU. France, Austria and Hungary have banned even that.

The Commission has pledged to speed up the process after losing a World Trade Organisation case against the US. Washington has granted a period of grace but could press for sanctions if the situation is not resolved soon.

The Commission is likely to approve soon the four insect-resistant maize types, including three developed by Monsanto, the US biotech company. But it faces an internal battle over the potato Amfora, made by BASF, the chemicals group. Byproducts of the potato can be used in animal feed but it also creates resistance to some important antibiotics, environmentalists say.

Japanese tell Australia, stay GM free

Consumers Union of Japan news media release, 20 February 2008.

Victoria, Australia -- A delegation from the Consumers Union of Japan (CUJ) will visit the Australian Embassy in Tokyo tomorrow (21/2), to ask the new Australian government to ban Genetically Manipulated (GM) canola. CUJ has 1,250 member organisations that represent over 2 million Japanese shoppers.

And in Australia, Michiyo Koketsu and Ryoko Shimizu from CUJ are asking for Australian GM-free canola. At Horsham yesterday, they urged over 200 farmers to continue growing GM-free.

"We were shocked to hear that your farmers who want to stay GM-free are scared to speak out, under company and agribusiness pressure for GM canola," said Ms Koketsu of Consumers Union of Japan.

"We share your farmers' concerns about being overrun and contaminated by GM canola, and losing markets especially in Japan.

"Feral GM canola is growing all around Japanese ports though we do not even grow canola.

"We need you to keep supplying us with GM-free. Eighteen countries grow GM-free canola (only Canada and the USA grow GM) but Australia is the sole exporter of GM-free canola on world markets.

"We are worried that our clean, green GM-free choice will be taken away.

"Over 90% of Coles and Foodland customers also want GM-free food so we appeal to Australian people and governments to extend the GM canola bans.

"Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania have listened to their overseas and Australian customers and we are grateful that those states will remain GM-free," said Ms Ryoko Shimizu of the Policy Research Institute for the Civil Sector, a member of CUJ.

"Our members pay a lot for Australia's GM-free products because we have deep concerns over the health and safety of GM foods.

"We know that some GM foods are unsafe for experimental animals and humans, though most have not been independently tested.

"We want Victoria and New South Wales to extend their GM bans, so the whole of Australia stays GM-free and your wholesome clean, green reputation is kept.

"We know from Percy Schmeiser at the Horsham meeting, and other Canadian farmers, that GM canola contamination can spread nation-wide.

"In Canada, Monsanto and Bayer have also stopped selling GM-free canola seed as patented GM seed is more profitable, so all Canadian canola is GM now.

"GM-free is the way we want to stay and we ask Australians to help us," Ms Shimizu concludes.

For more comment:

Ryoko Shimizu T: 0412 077 630 or 0011 81-90-6001-0495 (Japanese mobile, int. roaming)
After 3pm 03 9347 4500

Thank you South Australia!

Consumers Union of Japan, February 19 2008

Consumers Union of Japan took the initiative to the No! GMO Campaign that started in 1996 as a Japanese group of citizens that were alarmed by the many problems associated with genetically manipulated (GM) food.

We were very encouraged and pleased recently as we received the news that South Australia decided to keep its GM moratorium. We wish to express our sincere appreciation to South Australia for taking this step. We would like to further ask that the strict GM-free policy is permanently maintained, for the sake of both consumers' health and the environment. GM crops should be eliminated, and not accepted.

We strongly request that South Australia makes sure not to let GM canola be cultivated in South Australia now or in the future.

USA: Monsanto U.
Public-university researchers get cash for studying GMOs -- and the shaft for studying organic ag

Gristmill, 20 February 2008. By Nancy Scola.

The following is a guest essay by Nancy Scola, a Brooklyn-based writer. Her essay, which first appeared on Alternet, is a lucid, detailed look at what has become of public-university agriculture research in an age of budget austerity.

---

I've startled a bug scientist. "Yeah, now I'm nervous," said Mike Hoffmann, a Cornell University entomologist and crop specialist who spends his days with cucumber beetles and small wasps. But he's also in charge of keeping the research funding flowing at Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. What have I done to alarm him? I've drawn his attention to the newly released FY 2009 Presidential Budget.

Like more than a hundred public institutions of higher learning, Cornell is what's known as a "land grant" college. Dotting the United States from Ithaca, N.Y., to Pullman, Wash., such schools were established by a Civil War-era act of Congress to provide universities centered around "the agriculture and mechanic arts." Congress handed each U.S. state a chunk of federal land to be sold for start-up monies, and for the last 150 years, it has funded groundbreaking research on all things agriculture, from dirt to crops to cattle.

The land-grant system has been, in short, a high-yield investment. The scientific research that has come out of land-grant labs and fields has aided millions of farmers and fed millions of Americans. And the land-grant reach doesn't stop at ocean's edge. Oklahoma State, the Sooner State's land grant, says that the public funding of land-grant research "has benefited every man, woman and child in the United States and much of the world."

That was until America's land-grant system met George W. Bush.

Tucked into the appendix of Bush's latest national budget is a nearly one-third cut in the public funding for agriculture research at the land grants. The size of the cut is surprising, but not its existence -- it's part of a multiyear drive by the Bush administration to completely eliminate regular public research funding. In a press briefing last week, a USDA deputy secretary illuminated the Bush administration's rationale for the transition to competitive grant making: "That's how you get the most bang for the buck."

Wallace Huffman, an Iowa State agro-economist, is deeply unimpressed with Bush's "bang" approach to land-grant research. "There's a sense in the president's office that you invest in research like you invest in building cars," Huffman told me last week. Land-grant school officials are similarly skeptical. In a survey, Kansas State argued that the loss of regular funding would upend education. Minnesota complained that cuts would undermine ongoing research projects. North Dakota simply asked, "What is the future of ag research?"

Good question. A reasonable answer? The future of agricultural research at America's land-grant institutions belongs to biotech conglomerates like Monsanto. And it seems likely that it's a future of chemical-dependent, genetically modified, bioengineered agriculture.

In stark contrast to how the federal government and many states are wallowing in red ink, the St. Louis-based Monsanto boasted more than $7 billion in annual sales in 2007 -- simply the latest in four years of record-smashing profits. And so when our president says that the time has come for public land-grant institutions to get cracking at "leveraging nonfederal resources," you can be sure that Monsanto's ears perk.

But, it doesn't take a presidential invitation to get Monsanto to sink its roots in the land-grant system. Those roots are already planted. Iowa State's campus boasts a Monsanto Auditorium and the school offers students Monsanto-funded graduate fellowships on seed policy with a special focus on "the protection of intellectual property rights." Kansas State has spun off Wildcat Genetics, a side company whose purpose is the selling of soybean seeds genetically engineered to survive the application of Roundup -- the result of a decades long relationship with Monsanto, the pesticide's maker.

But don't get the wrong idea about Monsanto's land-grant activities. By that, I mean, don't think the company is the only multinational biotech conglomerate firmly rooted in American land-grant soil.

Head on down to Texas A&M. There you'll find the a chair for the "Dow Chemical Professor of Biological and Agricultural Engineering." Similar chairs exist at West Virginia State and Louisiana State. The agricultural college of the University of California at Davis is funded in part by DuPont and Calgene.

The University of California at Berkeley's Plant and Microbiology Department entered into a $25 million/five-year quasi-exclusive research agreement with the Swiss-based Novartis, which then became Syngenta, which now funds the land-grant research group on soybean fungi. In 2005, Purdue, Indiana's land-grant school, developed an application of the so-called Terminator gene pioneered by Delta Pine and Land Co.; school officials and researchers later took to the hustings when the public resisted the idea of self-sterilizing plants.

But the agricultural industry's relationship with the land-grant system is not an entirely new development. In 1973, former Texas agricultural commissioner and activist Jim Hightower lamented the situation in his landmark report, "Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times: The Failure of America's Land Grant College Complex."

But the world of agriculture today is a far different place than when Hightower wrote.

For one thing, in the early 1970s Monsanto was still a decade away from genetically modifying its very first plant cell. For another, back then the federal government was still committed to providing steady research funding.

And, importantly, it was neither possible nor profitable for our nation's bastions of higher learning to be players in the global agribusiness. But intervening tectonic shifts in American public policy help us to understand why a public institution like Purdue would fight so darn hard to defend a biotech advance like the Terminator gene: in a manner of speaking, they own the thing.

Jump ahead to 1980, when the U.S. Supreme Court under Warren Burger decided that, as long as they'd been tweaked from their natural state, living organisms from seeds to microbes or Terminator genes could be patented just as if they were a new cotton gin or tractor blade. And in that same year, Congress gave universities a kick towards the marketplace by encouraging institutions to file patent claims on the discoveries and inventions of their faculty researchers -- no matter if their work was funded in whole or in part by taxpayer dollars.

The summed effect was that, suddenly, a public institution like Purdue had a great deal of motivation for working with Delta Pine and Land Co. to see if they might make a buck off their biotech invention in the marketplace. What's more, the policy shift made it so individual lab geeks themselves stood to profit, eligible for a large slice of whatever windfall their discovery generated.

As the biotech industry has since exploded, the impact on the land-grant system is perhaps not unexpected. "Researchers want to be at both the cutting edge of science and the cutting edge of the marketplace," says Andrew Neighbour, until recently the director of UCLA's office on the business applications of faculty research. (The entire University of California system functions as that state's "land-grant institution.") And so the advent of patentable and profitable plants (and animals, for that matter) has meant a shift in research focus away new knowledge and towards the creation of marketable products.

The land-grant institutions find themselves in a pickle. "On the one hand," says Paul Gepts, professor of agronomy and plant genetics at UC Davis, schools pushed into the free market have developed the habit of patenting research and found a taste for private business deals. But on the other hand, "they have a public role where the information they produce should be available to all."

As things stand, "public universities," says Dr. Gepts, "are a contradiction."

This embrace of patents and profits means that land-grant agricultural research centers today are not playgrounds of academic collaboration they once were. "Things have changed enormously," says William Folk, a plant geneticist at the University of Missouri. "When I started in the '70s," he recalls fondly, "meetings were filled with people criticizing each other and sharing ideas." But today, he says "if you have an idea that has any potential commercial value, you're reluctant to share."

Not surprisingly, school administrators argue that a negative reading of the cozy relationship between agricultural researchers and biotech corporations like Monsanto and Syngenta is hogwash. When asked, Neal Van Alfen, dean of the UC Davis College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, acknowledges that about 20 percent of the $165 million annual research budget is contributed by industry. But Dean Van Alfen is quick to add, "It forms just one part of who we work with." Research conducted in conjunction with industry interests, he insists, is simply one chunk of "an awfully large amount of work."

But numbers and percentages don't tell the whole story, because of the way that industry engages in the land-grant system. In short, they skim. Here's how it works: (a) federal and state governments hand over taxpayer money to build and sustain the basic infrastructure, without which research can't hope to take place, then (b) the biotech industry injects some smaller amount of much-needed cash into the system, and then (c) agribusinesses skim off and patent the most promising (and potentially profitable) discoveries that rise to the top.

Still, administrators argue, scientific professionalism keeps industry in check -- a researcher who fudges his or her findings to curry industry favor is in for a short career. But that line of reasoning misses the real concern. What's alarming isn't that global agribusiness conglomerates like Monsanto, Dow Chemical, and DuPont are getting the answers they want from our land-grant entomologists, agronomists, and plant geneticists.

It's that at public institutions, private interests are the ones asking the questions.

What must be kept in mind is that land-grant researchers are generally expected to bring to the table their own research funding, and the situation can already be fairly dire. When UC Davis' Paul Gepts comments on how his institution's support is limited to a base salary, I attempt a lame joke: "They give you a desk too, right?" Yes, he responds, but a phone is another matter.

Faculty researchers are so hungry for funding that, says Missouri's William Folk, "if companies want to entice researchers to work on their projects, all they have to do is wave a bit of money." The availability of funds, he says, "makes an enormous difference in what we can do."

"We're opportunists," Folk says, with compassion, of himself and his fellow researchers, "we go after money where it might be."

When it comes to how industry-university relations shape academic research, UCLA's Andrew Neighbour is the person to talk to. While an administrator at Washington University in St. Louis, Neighbour managed the school's landmark multiyear and multimillion-dollar relationship with Monsanto. (Note: WashU is a private institution.) "There's no question that industry money comes with strings," Neighbour admits. "It limits what you can do, when you can do it, who it has to be approved by."

And so the issue at hand becomes one of the questions that are being asked at public land-grant schools. While Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, et al., are paying the bills, are agricultural researchers going to pursue such lines of scientific inquiry as "How will this new corn variety impact the independent New York farmer?" Or, "Will this new tomato make eaters healthier?"

It seems far more likely that the questions that multinational biotech conglomerates are willing to pay to have answered run along the lines of "How can we keep growing our own bottom lines?"

I put it to Dr. Folk. "The companies are there to make money, no doubt," he responds.

What suffers for falling outside the scope of industry interest? Organic farming, for one. The Organic Farming Research Foundation was founded in the 1980s after, Executive Director Bob Scowcroft tells me, farmers interested in weaning themselves from chemical dependence approached their local land-grant outreach agents for help for pest management. As Scowcroft tells it, their advice was invariably in the spirit of, "Well, sure, I can tell you what to spray."

OFRF began arming land-grant researchers with modest grants, but found that academics interested in conducting organic-related research faced obstacles beyond funding.

"Coming out of the organic closet could be the beginning of the end of your career," says Scowcroft. Looking outside biotech agriculture is, he says, "like throwing 30 years of the Green Revolution in your boss's face." Today, says John Reganold, an OFRF grantee and apple researcher at Washington State University, academics interested in organic farming "just don't have the money to do what we need to do."

Also the subject of minimal industry attention: so-called orphan crops, like sorghum and cassava, which feed millions of people in the developing world but aren't considered patentable or profitable. UC Davis' Paul Gepts is working to breed a disease-resistant variety of the East African common bean, an important protein source for AIDS sufferers. He's turned to an English charitable group for funding, and all involved have agreed to resist patenting the plant -- once a useful variety is developed, the science will be left in the public domain.

While it's clear that funding cash is the carrot used by agribusiness to entice researchers into asking the questions industry is most interested in having answered, there is a stick involved: corporately held patents used to block them from asking others.

That's certainly been Paul Gepts's experience, when he thought he might tackle the question of gene transfer in Mexican maize varieties. The question, though, is a sensitive one for Monsanto, as one of the arguments against transgenic crops is the difficulty in containing their spread -- raising the specter of a threat to the world's biodiversity. As the maize he was interested in was patented by Monsanto, Gepts asked the company for some samples. Their response: no way.

When I asked Gepts for his take on Monsanto's motivation for the refusal, I hadn't yet finished the question when he answered: "Avoiding scrutiny," he said. Missouri's Folk seconds the contention that such private claims on science impede research, saying, "Our ability to do science is constrained by the patents held by agribusiness."

All this said, it's not fair to say that there hasn't been resistance against public land-grant schools mutating into institutions of private science. After Novartis had become involved in UC Berkeley's Department of Plant and Microbiology, the school ordered an internal review by the academic senate, which ultimately deemed the relationship "a mistake." Lawrence Busch, a Berkeley faculty member who headed the review said at its conclusion: "I think it is high time for serious discussions of what the devil we want our universities to be."

When Mike Hoffmann -- the Cornell entomologist I startled by sharing Bush's proposed budget cuts -- recovers from his shock, he offers his take on "what the devil" our universities should be. The principle that should guide Cornell, Berkeley, Missouri, and our other land-grant institutions is simple, he says: public funding for the public good. The mission of America's centers of agricultural learning is, he concludes, "to produce new knowledge for the public benefit. That's why we have the land-grant system, and I think it's pretty important."

USA: 'A Growing Concern' (Part 3)

Mother Jones magazine article published in 1997.

Note: This investigation into the GM cotton crop failures back in 1997 focuses (in part 3) on the relationship between US university scientists and the biotech industry. Here are some excerpts.

•

Texas entomologist John Benedict blames the system. "The universities are cheering us on, telling us to get closer to industry, encouraging us to consult with big business. The bottom line is to improve the corporate bottom line. It's the way we move up, get strokes.... We can't help but be influenced from time to time by our desire to see certain results happen in the lab."

•

Private industry contributes 10 percent of Texas A&M's whopping $41 million annual agricultural research budget, and Benedict says he knew Monsanto was contributing money to his research. "All of these companies have a piece of me," Benedict says. "I'm getting checks waved at me from Monsanto and American Cyanamid and Dow, and it's hard to balance the public interest with the private interest. It's a very difficult juggling act, and sometimes I don't know how to juggle it all."

Science for Sale?

Congress has helped pave the way for corporate biotech programs, passing a series of laws in the 1980s that pushed federally funded research at universities into the eager hands of agrochemical companies. Congressional specialty grants, which are designed to let Congress respond to pressing agricultural concerns, are generally awarded to researchers who already have industry sponsors in place...

Under a banner of global competitiveness, this new relationship between academia, business, and government encourages universities to waste no time converting their science into patent rights. Previously, such research had been considered public property. Any patents that emerged typically were held by government. Indeed, so ingrained was this public ethos that when Jonas Salk was asked who owned the patent to his polio vaccine, he responded incredulously, "The people, I would say. Could you patent the sun?"

Today, however, universities are quick to license patent rights to companies for profit-making. These same companies, meanwhile, award grants to university entomologists and geneticists to conduct research on future products.

Often, critics say, it doesn't take a great deal of money to entice a university department or scientist over to the corporate side, particularly in this time of state and federal funding cuts. "Universities are more than ever hunting for corporate money, and while that money may be a small percentage of the overall budget, it's often enough to influence the direction of public science,'' explains Kathleen Merrigan of the Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, a nonprofit research and education organization based in Washington, D.C. "Corporate money can be the tail that wags the dog." For example:

In 1985, Cornell University agreed to do research on bovine growth hormone (BGH) for Monsanto. Tess Hooks, a sociologist at the University of Western Ontario whose graduate work at Cornell dealt with scientific ethics, reviewed the agreement between Cornell and Monsanto.

According to Hooks, the university would test BGH on dairy cows and report the findings to Monsanto, which would present its case to the FDA. The government agency would then decide if the hormone -- which increases a cow's milk production -- created any health risks to cows or milk consumers. But before Cornell received the $557,000 grant from Monsanto, Hooks says, it essentially had to agree to hand over control of its research to the biotech company.

... At North Carolina State University, a miniscandal erupted three years ago when several professors were found to be moonlighting as paid consultants to Rhone-Poulenc, Monsanto, and American Cyanamid -- at the same time the professors were evaluating the companies' biotech products for the university. One distinguished weed science professor, Harold Coble, appeared in a Rhone-Poulenc marketing brochure singing the virtues of the company's genetically engineered cotton plant and its companion herbicide, bromoxynil. "There isn't a downside to the BXN," he says in the brochure...

...in some cases it is difficult to tell where public research ends and the company's marketing begins.

Take, for example, the August 25, 1996, letter from Ron H. Smith, an entomologist at Auburn University, that Monsanto faxed to Mother Jones in support of its Bt cotton. "Weeks from now," Smith wrote, "when the last bale of the 1996 cotton crop is harvested...producers finally will have time to pause and reflect on the revolution that has gripped their profession. The results, so far, have been astonishing.... The proof, as they say, is in the pudding -- or, in this case, the [farmer's] pocketbook."

Although the letter bore Smith's signature, an Auburn public relations official actually wrote it for him. When asked if he received any funding from Monsanto for his research, Smith replied, "No, not directly." However, Mother Jones found university records indicating that Monsanto gave $500,000 to Auburn University between 1991 and 1996; $26,000 was earmarked for projects listing Smith's name. When asked again, Smith confirmed the information, saying he had misunderstood the original question

UK: ACRE Jumps the Gun on GM Spud Application

GM Freeze press release, 20 February 2008.

GM Freeze and Friends of the Earth have written to Hilary Benn asking him to intervene to prevent his GM scientific advisors (ACRE [1]) from discussing an application to release GM potatoes in Yorkshire before the period for mandatory public consultation is completed.

Leeds University [2] applied to Defra in January to release GM potatoes modified to repel the pests potato cyst nematodes (PCN). The deadline for the public to comment on the application is 3 March. However ACRE will discuss the application 11 days before at their scheduled meeting on 21 February. Mr Benn will make the final decision to approve or refuse the application "based on expert advice and public representations". [3] Public consultation is mandatory under the GMO Regulations. [4]

In their letter to Hilary Benn, the organisations point out that it would be "discourteous" for ACRE to discuss the application before the public consultation period is complete and "that ACRE places a lower value on the comments from the public and stakeholders than on the material provided by the applicants". The letter points out the sophistication of previous public responses to past consultations on GM policy and applications, and the need for ACRE to consider what the public says alongside the information provided by Leeds University before giving their advice to Mr Benn. [5]

There are several major reasons for Defra to turn down the application, including:

•

Risk of contamination for neighbouring potato crops from insect cross-pollination.

•

Lack of safety data on unexpected chemical changes in the GM potatoes.

•

Lack of safety data on the synthetic genes genetically engineered into the potatoes.

•

Lack of allergenicity testing on the GM repellant chemicals produced by the GM potatoes.

•

The presence of antibiotic resistant marker genes in the GM potatoes.

Also, there is no market demand for GM potatoes in the UK and they are unnecessary ‚ PCN can be controlled using good husbandry. The keys are to have long rotations [6] allowing five years or more between crops, to plant trap crops, and to maintain good hygiene in the field to prevent PCN infestations growing large enough to threaten crop yields.

Commenting Clare Oxborrow of Friends of the Earth said: "ACRE should not be jumping the gun and should delay its meeting to allow time to consider what issues the public has raised. It would be very bad for democracy and public oversight of scientific research if the public's views are seen to carry less weigtht than those wishing to release GM crops. People may well get very disillusioned and just not bother next time and that may lead to very bad decisions being made in the future."

Pete Riley of GM Freeze said: "In the case of potato cyst nematodes there are several control options which don't require either pesticides or GM crops. We are in danger of getting to a point where GM is the only option which gets the funding needed to develop it. Mr Benn should refuse this application and insist that sustainable management options are given a fair chance. Approving these GM potatoes could, in future, tempt farmers to adopt too short rotations, making other pest problems worse."

Calls to:

GM Freeze Pete Riley 0845 217 8992 /07903 341065 or Eve Mitchell 07962 437128

Friends of the Earth Clare Oxborrow 0207 566 1716 /07712 843211

Notes

1. The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) Agenda 21 February www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/meetings/08/ag-080221.htm

19 February 2008

EU agriculture ministers against GMO potato

Poland Radio news, 19 February 2008.

On Monday, Poland was among agriculture ministers of 27 EU Member States that rejected a proposal regarding the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in potato farming. Ý

The issue will be referred back to the European Commission for further consideration. Ý

According to unofficial sources, there is a group of EU commissioners who are against GMO potato growing. Ý

Epidemiologists warn that consumption of genetically modified food may cause cancer and allergy. Ý

In the opinion of an epidemiology expert Professor Zbigniew Halat, it is impossible for the consumer to distinguish between GMO and organic potatoes.Ý Introduction of the GMO potato in our diet may be hazardous to the health, Professor Halat has warned. Ý

Other scientists point out that no conclusive proof has been found that GM is a hazard to human well being. Ý

But environmentalists warn that GMO crops are detrimental to biodiversity and may add to the pollution of the environment. Ý

Maciej Muskat from Greenpeace Poland has claimed that the EU Commission has been under great pressure from the bio

technological lobbying groups. Ý

Both the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) have questioned the positive opinion expressed on the use of the GMO potato issued by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Ý

Poland is currently in dispute with the EU over its general ban of GM crops. Brussels has forwarded the matter to the Court of Justice for judgment. (mj)

GM Trees

GM Watch, 19 February 2008. By Claire Robinson.

[A slightly edited version of this article was originally published in The Ecologist - www.theecologist.org]

The United States government has given the go-ahead for a test plot of genetically modified (GM) eucalyptus trees in Alabama. For the first time, these trees will be allowed to flower and set seed, opening the door to potential widespread contamination of the American South. Some of the trees are genetically engineered by biotech firm ArborGen for cold tolerance, while others are engineered with "confidential" traits.[1] Published articles and industry reports indicate that these traits may include the ability to kill insects and reduced lignin.[2] Lignin gives strength to trees and enables them to take up water.

The permit for the flowering GM eucalyptus was approved by APHIS (the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, a sub-department of the US Department of Agriculture). The approval follows APHIS's grant of non-regulated status for the GM pox-resistant "Honeysweet" plum, which the USDA itself helped develop.[3] Non-regulated status is given on the basis that APHIS has decided that the plant does not present a risk of introduction or dissemination of a plant pest. Deregulation of the GM plum marked the first commercial release of a GM temperate tree in the US. It occurred in spite of the fact that public comments against the proposal to deregulate the plum outnumbered those in favour by 100 to 1.[3]

APHIS has also approved the largest-ever release in the US of GM poplars. Some are modified for reduced stature and light response, others for altered lignin content, and others to result in a male-sterile plant.[4]

This raft of GM tree approvals confirms that the trend in the US regulatory system is to rubber-stamp applications for release with disregard for the risks. Anne Petermann, co-director of the Global Justice Ecology Project, says, "There is no independent risk assessment going on in the US or anywhere else with regard to GM trees."[5]

As far as eucalyptus is concerned, even to introduce it in its non-GM form could be foolhardy. Eucalyptus is a species of the tropics and subtropics, and is not native to the US. In countries where it has been introduced, it has become invasive. The fact that some of ArborGen's GM eucalyptus trees are modified to be cold tolerant will extend their ability to colonize. There is no way of knowing how this and the eucalyptus's other GM traits (which ArborGen will not reveal) may impact forests and wildlife.

Another problem with GM eucalyptus trees that APHIS ignores is the risk to people and animals. The Global Justice Ecology Project has uncovered evidence that one of the eucalyptus species engineered into the GM version is host to a deadly pathogenic fungus called Cryptococcus gattii, which causes fatal fungus meningitis in people and animals that inhale its spores. Cases are increasing worldwide, possibly coinciding with the spread of introduced eucalyptus. Two recent studies show that the fungal human pathogen is common in eucalyptus and that it is endemic in the Northwest US and British Columbia, Canada. APHIS ignored the fact that eucalyptus poses a threat as a plant pest spreading a human pathogen.[6] It has dismissed the warnings of scientists such as Dr Joseph Heitman, director of the Center for Microbial Pathogenesis at Duke University Medical Center and an expert on Cryptococcus, who said, "Introducing large numbers of eucalyptus trees in the United States has the potential to provide a suitable habitat for Cryptococcus gattii."[7]

A major reason why regulators are bowing to industry pressure to commercialize GM trees is that they are claimed to offset carbon emissions, and thus qualify for subsidies under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism.[8] In addition, the rising demand for biofuels has opened up an opportunity for proponents to rescue GM crops from chronic market failure by promoting them as energy crops.

Unfortunately, energy crops, including GM trees, are far from sustainable. The United Nations is one of several bodies that have pointed out that the rush to energy crops threatens food shortages and increased poverty.[9] Worldwide grain shortages have already been blamed on agricultural land being given over to biofuel crops.[10] The UN report also says biofuel crops are not guaranteed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Biofuels result in some reductions in emissions compared to petroleum fuels, it says, but this is provided there is no clearing of forest or peat that store centuries of carbon. In reality, deforestation is already speeding up in Brazil, Malaysia, and Indonesia to make way for palm oil and other plantations to feed the new biodiesel market.[11]

The traits engineered into GM trees bring their own environmental problems. Sterility technology as used in GM poplars is designed to make the trees male-sterile by making the pollen non-viable. It is increasingly used as a selling point by the GM industry on the grounds that it will prevent GM contamination of conventional plants. However, it is a "leaky" technology, in that some viable pollen is produced. Thus the male sterility trait could spread to contaminate non-GM trees, and could lead to sterile forests.[12]

Bt trees, in which a pesticide is engineered into every cell, are toxic to insects. Evidence is growing that Bt crops are also toxic to other non-target organisms, such as animals that graze on them or feed on the insects that have ingested the Bt.[13] Bt crops also infect soil, leaving it toxic to other plants.[14] Trees have life-cycles of 100 years or more, so Bt tree plantations will be sources of toxicity for many years to come.

Low-lignin trees are of particular value to the biofuels industry. Anne Petermann explains, "Since cellulose is the material of interest in trees in the manufacture of cellulosic ethanol, and lignin gets in the way of accessing this cellulose, genetically engineering trees for higher cellulose and reduced lignin content is of great economic interest. I would venture it unlikely that industry would pursue trees for cellulosic ethanol without them being genetically engineered."[15] The problem with low-lignin trees is that half their strength has been removed, making them vulnerable to environmental stresses such as high winds and pest attack. The tendency of GM traits to leak into ecosystems raises the prospect of disastrously weakened forests unable to cope with increasingly extreme weather. And once fallen, low-lignin trees decompose more rapidly, returning carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at an accelerated timescale and thereby negating any supposed greenhouse gas benefits.[16]

In spite of the hype surrounding the use of wood for biofuels, the technology does not yet exist to do it efficiently. Probably, it cannot be done without using GM enzymes. For this reason, the US Department of Energy's Joint Genome Institute is involved in a project to genetically engineer the enzyme from the gut of a termite to aid the cellulose digestion process.[17] As Anne Petermann says, "Imagine the impact on forests if that got loose somehow." But it seems that when it comes to GM trees, our regulators would prefer not to imagine, or even to exercise common sense. ENDS

1. USDA Approves 1st Flowering GE Tree (Eucalyptus), APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) notification, http://www.stopgetrees.org/article.php?story=20070716121113880

2. National Effort Launched to Stop Genetically Engineered Eucalyptus Plantations in US Southeast, http://aeconline.wagdc.com/?sn=367

3. Transgenic Plum Gets USDA Non-regulated Status Based on False Claims of Safety, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/TransgenicPlumUSDA.php

4. Unregulated Release of GM Poplars and Hybrids, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMpoplarsandhybrids.php

5. Anne Petermann, personal communication

6. U.S. Health & Enviro Agencies Asked to Investigate Potential Link Between Pathogenic Fungus & Introduced GE Eucalyptus, http://www.stopgetrees.org/article.php?story=20070614090301897 Personal communication with Prof. Joe Cummins. Joe Cummins cites 2 studies to support his statement that "the fungal human pathogen is common in eucalyptus" and "endemic" in the Northwest US and British Columbia, Canada, respectively: (i) Gugnani HC et al, Isolation of Cryptococcus gattii and Cryptococcus neoformans var. grubii from the flowers and bark of Eucalyptus trees in India, Med Mycol. 2005 Sep;43(6):565-9; (ii) MacDougall L et al, Spread of Cryptococcus gattii in British Columbia, Canada, and detection in the Pacific Northwest, USA, Emerg Infect Dis. 2007 Jan;13(1):42-50.

7. U.S. Health & Enviro Agencies Asked to Investigate Potential Link Between Pathogenic Fungus & Introduced GE Eucalyptus, http://www.stopgetrees.org/article.php?story=20070614090301897

8. Moratorium on all GM Trees and Ban on GM Forest Trees, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Moratorium_on_all_GM_Trees.php

9. Global rush to energy crops threatens to bring food shortages and increase poverty, says UN, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7849

10. ENERGY-CHINA: Biofuels Eating Into Food Grain Stocks, http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35905

11.Biofuels: Biodevastation, Hunger & False Carbon Credits, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BiofuelsBiodevastationHunger.php

12. Moratorium on all GM Trees and Ban on GM Forest Trees, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Moratorium_on_all_GM_Trees.php

13. Bt Cotton & Livestock effects: CSA meets farmers & officials in Adilabad district", http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7614

14. Genetically-modified Bt cotton a cropper: Study, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5103

15. Anne Petermann, personal communication

16. Moratorium on all GM Trees and Ban on GM Forest Trees, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Moratorium_on_all_GM_Trees.php

17. Termite Gut Bacteria as Allies in Biofuel Production, http://www.cedab.it/newsletter_ISAAA.asp?IDnews=103#ancora9 also Anne Petermann, personal communication

China's Genetically Altered Food Boom

Time magazine, 18 February 2008.

In the wake of poisonings in Japan linked to Chinese-made dumplings, last week brought a fresh wave of scrutiny to China's control over its food industry. In 2006 and 2007, European officials discovered an unauthorized variety of genetically modified (GM) rice made in China - illegal in both Europe and China ó in processed food exported to European Union nations. Last Tuesday, the European Commission enacted an emergency regulation on Chinese food imports: Starting April 15, food products containing Chinese rice will require mandatory certification that they've been tested for the experimental GM variety called Bt63.

The measure underscores a discomfort in the West with China's growing dominance in the business of inventing and selling genetically modified seed. Faced with feeding every fifth person on the planet with less than one-tenth of the world's farmland, Beijing has been pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into transgenic crop research and development, hoping the plants, whose DNA is combined with genetic material that programs them with traits like pest and weed resistance, will help farmers yield more food and commodities at a lower cost - especially as farmland is being lost to development and drought. Most of China's cotton is already transgenic, and rice, wheat, maize, soybeans and livestock are in the pipeline. "China decided that conventional technology would not allow it to feed its people," says Clive James, chairman and founder of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA). In the 12 years since GM crops have been commercially grown, James says most planting has been in the Americas. "I believe that the second decade will be the decade of Asia," he says.

It's a shift that's causing second thoughts on both sides of this enduringly controversial technology. The United States is the world's most enthusiastic adopter of GM crops, growing vast amounts of crops like herbicide-tolerant soybeans and insect-resistant corn; here, the seeds of globally operating companies like Monsanto and DuPont have passed health and environmental muster. While U.S. regulators have determined GM foods are safe to eat, China's fast growth raises the question of whether one country's health safety trials can translate in another. "We've been saying, 'Trust us,'" says Gregory Jaffe, director of the Biotechnology Project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington. "Now the shoe is on the other foot. And we're not sure we like that system."

In Europe, where consumer acceptance of GM food has always been lower than in the U.S., concerns over the incidents of Bt63 contamination may be rooted less in anxiety over China's safety standards than in a more general worry over the ever-increasing use of GM crops around the world. China, after all, is not alone in its transgressions: the U.S. has also had major incidents of its GM plants showing up in the wrong food chains, costing big trade dollars from GM-wary nations. Last year, Gene Watch UK, a watchdog group that works with Greenpeace, recorded 39 worldwide incidents of illegal GM plants found in food supplies, or approved GM plants found in countries where they are illegal. Becky Price, who helps maintain Gene Watch UK's public list of global GM contamination, says keeping track of these plants is still far from a perfect science. "Nobody has demonstrated how to grow a GM food crop and stop it from getting into the food chain," says Price. "It's a ridiculous concept."

Beijing is listening. Long before last week's announcement from the EC, Chinese officials were aware of the risks - particularly to its global image ó in moving too fast on developing and trading its own GM food crops. So far, only a handful of minor food plants like papaya, tomato and bell pepper have been approved for commercial planting in China. A few years back, many scientists believed it would be the first nation in the world to give the thumbs up to genetically modified rice varieties like Bt63. But after Greenpeace found unapproved GM rice seed for sale in a Chinese market in 2003, and when illegal rice also started to show up in processed noodles in Europe, China's Ministry of Agriculture appeared to back off.

Now the experimental varieties are stuck in testing paddies around the country, and biotech labs' funds are starting to be depleted by the costly requirement of buying back and destroying the rice from the farmers who grow it. "There's no indication that if you continue, you'll get approved," says Jikun Huang, Director of the Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Though the amount of rice exported from China is small, Huang says that if China became the first to commercialize GM rice and there was a slip-up in international trade, "People would lose faith in all [Chinese] commodities."

Beijing faces a lack of confidence even at home. In a survey conducted last year by Greenpeace, 65% of consumers in Shanghai, Beijing and Guangzhou who were familiar with GM food preferred its conventional cousin. "Right now, I think if most people see that a plant is transgenic, they don't like it," says Li Huaping of South China Agricultural University. Despite China's policy of mandatory labeling GM foods, Li says many of the transgenic papayas he helped develop go unlabeled in markets because vendors know they won't sell as well. Nevertheless, Li is optimistic this will change: "As knowledge is spread, and people understand what transgenic means, I think more people will like it."

To be sure, all of China's R&D won't lie fallow forever. If Clive James is right, the Decade of Asia is coming. If a serious virus were to threaten China's crucial domestic rice supply, or if a well-positioned politician decided transgenic maize was the answer to soaring global food prices, Beijing's green light could come quickly. And the world would have to be ready to go.

Ireland: Fine Gael's blind faith in GM food and farming

GM-free Ireland Network, 19 February 2008. By Michael O'Callaghan.

Last week, Fine Gael Agriculture Spokesman Michael Creed claimed that GM food and animal feed are safe because the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, the European Food Safety Authority, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) say so.

But the long-term health risks of GM food and animal feed have NEVER been studied. GM crops have scrambled genomes, with unpredictable metabolic and ecological consequences. Their transgenic DNA produces novel proteins our immune systems may not recognize. Jeffrey Smith's book "Genetic Roulette: the documented health risks of GM food" links GM ingredients with deaths and diseases in laboratory animals, livestock and humans.

So how come our regulatory bodies claim GM food and feed are safe?

To avoid traceability and liability, Monsanto persuaded the US FDA to approve GM food and animal feed WITHOUT ANY RISK ASSESSMENTS or labelling of any kind! Last week, leading U.S. scientists called on Congress to make sure the next president does not do what they say George W. Bush has done: censor, suppress and falsify important environmental and health research.

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) is run by Dr. John O'Brien, a former Director of the International Life Sciences Institute biotech lobby group which is banned from WHO food safety discussions because it was funded by Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, DuPont, and Novartis / Syngenta. Not surprisingly, O'Brien claims GM food and animal feed are safe.

But FSAI's Chief Biotechnology Specialist Dr. Pat O'Mahony acknowledged "We are a law enforcement agency so we do not carry out research" on the safety of GM food and animal feed. FSAI Director of Food Science and Standards Alan Reilly admitted "We rely on scientific opinion from the European Food Safety Authority."

EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said "EFSA cannot deliver a sound scientific opinion on GMOs" because it mostly relies on risk assessments provided by the applicant companies; these are assumption-based, do not follow standard protocols, use results of feeding studies based on single ingredients instead of the whole GMO, discard troubling evidence, and accept the applicants' conclusions without disclosure of the original data.

Pseudo-scientific claims that GM food is safe are as spurious as earlier claims made for tobacco, asbestos, DDT, and the bone meal animal feed that led to BSE and new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

EU: BASF GM potato authorisation

Greenpeace, 19 February 2008

Greenpeace calls for an end to the deadlock between the Council and the European Commission. Yet again the Commission proposal to get GMOs authorised did not get Council approval. However, due to the inadequacies of the authorisation process, the Commission may nevertheless allow these products onto the EU market, which goes against the will of a majority of European citizens.

In the case of the BASF GM potato, Greenpeace calls on the Commission to urgently review the health risks arising from the antibiotic resistance properties of the potato, following statements by a leading scientist published in the International Herald Tribune yesterday.

Scientific evidence gathered by international bodies with expertise on the issue, such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and European Medicines Agency (EMEA), was ignored by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the Commission. The BASF potato contains a gene that could spread resistance to critically important antibiotics. The use of these genes has been subject to an EU-wide ban since 2004. Authorising this GMO would not only be illegal under EU law, but is also an irresponsible gamble with animal and human health.

The GM potato case highlights the huge cracks in the original Commission proposal and the fundamental lack of rigour in examining the real risks associated with GM products. Greenpeace calls on the Commission to solve the inconsistencies of the GMO authorisation process which has EFSA at its heart. It is high time for the Commission to stop hiding behind EFSA's flawed opinions.

Patrice Courvalin - Head of Antibacterial Agents Unit at the Institut Pasteur medical research centre: "We should keep trying to prevent dissemination of antibiotic resistance rather than to allow products into the food chain that could potentially make a bad situation even worse." (International Herald Tribune - 18 Feb)

What next?

The ball is now in the Commission's court. The next step should be to address the future of EFSA and how EU law on GMOs is implemented.

EFSA is a small, poorly-funded agency, which depends on the support of some 20 part-time scientists who end up taking decisions that affect the lives of half a billion European citizens.

EFSA is an advisory body which has a mandate to compose opinions, not to formulate decisions. The Commission cannot solely rely on EFSA's position, particularly when there is disagreement with recognised international bodies such as the WHO and EMEA.

Greenpeace European Unit is based in Brussels, where we monitor and analyse the work of the institutions of the European Union (EU), expose deficient EU policies and laws, and challenge decision-makers to implement progressive solutions.

EU: yesterday's voting on GMOS

The EU Agriculture Council voted on five GMOs yesterday. None were for cultivation, and in all cases Member States failed to reach the required majority to authorise commercialisation. Therefore the requests will now be sent back to the Commission which is expected to authorise them. Here are the detailed voting results for two of them, including the BASF starch potato:

1. BASF GM Potato (altered starch)for animal feed use
Pro: (9 MSs) UK, SE, NL, FI, BE, CZ, EE, ES, BU (not sure about BU)
Abstained: (3 MSs) FR, PT, IE
Against: (15 MSs) DE, RO, AT, LUX, LT, LV, IT, GR, DK, MT, CY, PL, HU, SL, SK

This is an increase compared to the voting last July when 11 Member States voted against the potato (including Germany)

2. GA 21 Syngenta GM maize for food and feed import and processing
Pro: (11 MSs) RO, FI, SE, SK, PT, NL, EE, SP, CZ, BU, BE
Abstained: (6 MSs) UK, DE, LV, IT, IE, FR
Against: (10 MSs) AT, SL, MT, LUX, GR, LT, CY, DK, PL, HU

The agenda of the meeting with the detail of all the GMOs voted on can be seen at:
http://www.eu2008.si/en/News_and_Documents/Agendas/February/0218_AGRIFISH.pdf

As regards GA21, which was already authorised for food uses since 2006, the majority was actually in favour of its approval.

USA: Herbicide-resistant genes found to persist in weeds

The StarPhoenix, February 19 2008. By Paul Hanley.

It's not supposed to happen, but it does. Genetically modified canola plants have been found to interbreed with a weed, producing a hybrid wild mustard that is resistant to the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup).

Significantly, these new hybrid weeds are persistent.

Millions are spent on propaganda to calm the nerves of irrational consumers and other overwrought folks worried about the environment, those who fear there is something potentially dangerous about genetic engineering. The main thrust of the campaign is to offer calm and reasoned responses from scientists meant to allay any and all concerns by establishing the "fact" that everything done in the name of biotechnology is perfectly safe.

First the propagandists said that genetically engineered plants wouldn't cross with weeds. When they did, they said the new hybrids wouldn't persist. They are unstable plants that die out after a year or two, so no need to worry. Now, new research from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada scientists provides the first report of persistence and apparent introgression (stable incorporation of genes from one gene pool into another).

The researchers found the herbicide resistance gene from Brassica napus moved into the gene pool of its weedy relative, Brassica rapa, under normal commercial field conditions. Persistence of the HR trait occurred during a six-year period.

Contrary to the propaganda from the biotechnology industry, the scientific community is not entirely at ease with genetic engineering, and for good reason.

Given that transgenic canola is grown over millions of acres across Canada and around the world, it is highly likely that herbicide-resistance genes have escaped to weeds in multiple locations. This is of great concern to organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), since it means the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds could be widespread.

The UCS believes the escape of transgenes into the wild is common. They point out, for example, that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has recently fined the Scotts company with the maximum penalty of $500,000 for allowing an experimental turf grass for golf courses to become established in the wild in the U.S.

Scotts' negligence allowed creeping bentgrass, which was genetically engineered to tolerate Roundup, to escape from field trials in Oregon and interbreed with wild relatives. This is the company's second offence, reports the UCS. Scotts was also fined in 2004 for not notifying the USDA on two occasions that the wind had blown seeds out of its test plots. The company agreed at that time to take additional steps to control the escaped bentgrass, but apparently did not succeed.

The transfer and persistence of herbicide-resistant genes in weedy species -- and the potential costs to farmers, other landowners, and the environment -- is one of the major concerns of the UCS about growing these crops.

The organization of scientists is not opposed to biotechnology, however they do oppose the sometimes cavalier attitude with which this new technology is deployed. They believe there is insufficient oversight by regulatory bodies to ensure safety, a concern that is confirmed by a growing number of reports of genes escaped into the wild or unapproved transgenic grains entering the food supply.

18 February 2008

Argentina: Danger in the fields

Inter Press Service, February 18 2008. By Marcela Valente.

BUENOS AIRES, Feb 18 (IPS) - The agriculture industry in Argentina is enjoying the boom in demand for soybeans and other commodities and the subsequent high prices, which are also fattening the state coffers. But the question of the unsafe handling of pesticides and fertilisers has basically been ignored amidst the collective euphoria.

According to the Secretariat of Agriculture, the latest harvest set a new record of nearly 95 million tons of grains, half of which were soybeans.

This year, the harvest should exceed 100 million tons, and the state expects to take in 7.5 billion dollars in tax revenue as a result.

Last year, farmers purchased more than 5,000 tractors, a similar number of sowing machines and 2,000 harvesting machines. But as the area under cultivation has expanded and investment in technology has increased, the use of agrochemicals has grown as well.

Private consultants estimate that 3.6 tons of fertilisers were used in 2007, 20 percent more than in 2006. And the growing demand has drawn major investments in fertiliser production plants run by local and international companies, which indicates that output will continue to rise.

A similar boom is seen in pesticide use, with glyphosate as the leading product, used to control weeds in the country's vast soybean fields.

Statistics from the Secretariat of the Environment show that the use of pesticides has grown steadily since 1991, and that half of the demand comes from soybean producers.

Argentina is the world's third-largest producer of soybeans, after the United States and Brazil.

But little attention has been paid to warnings from companies, government agencies and experts on the potential toxic health effects of agrochemicals for people living in rural areas.

Experts warn that the inappropriate handling of such products not only causes acute intoxication, but also health problems that only emerge in the long-term.

"This issue has not yet been put on the agenda of social problems," sociologist MarÌa Alejandra Silva, director of the workers health unit at the University of Rosario's School of Medicine, told IPS. "Concerned civil society sectors have failed to get our voices heard."

Local non-governmental organisations (NGOs) led by the Rural Reflection Group have long been warning about the risks faced by the rural population due to the expansion of monoculture farming of genetically modified soybeans, which require glyphosate, and the aerial spraying of fields, that is frequently carried out without the necessary safety precautions.

Silva, a researcher with the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), said the state, which brings in enormous tax revenues from farm exports, "looks the other way."

And although government bodies have even financed studies on the issue, "there are no policies, nor a political will, to address it," she said.

The expert also said transnational corporations that produce agrochemicals finance research carried out by the agronomy departments of universities in Buenos Aires and other provinces, thus compromising academic independence and objectivity.

The same is true, she said, in the case of coverage by the rural supplements of newspapers, which are financed by foreign companies.

In an article on "the challenges facing Argentina with respect to rural growth that has ignored environmental and health concerns", Silva wrote that in this South American country "little or no attention is paid to the question of the environmental and health sustainability of the rural sector's current model of growth."

She said the agricultural producers surveyed in the study expressed concern over the soil's loss of fertility caused by intensive use, but were not worried about the lack of oversight and control in the production, transportation, storage, handling and application of fertilisers and pesticides, or about the disposal of the empty containers.

Studies on the health effects of the inadequate handling of agrochemicals are few and far between, and "cases of intoxication are disguised in the official records," Silva complained.

The symptoms of mild or acute poisoning from agrochemicals include headache, fatigue, weakness, dizziness, restlessness, nervousness, perspiration, nausea, diarrhea, loss of appetite, loss of weight, thirst, moodiness, soreness in joints, skin irritation, eye irritation, and irritation of the nose and throat.

Long-term exposure to pesticides and fertilisers without adequate protection and safety measures can cause cancer, neurological damage, endocrine disruption, reproductive disorders, fetal malformations, immune system disruption and impaired nervous system function.

A study conducted in different regions with the coordination of the Argentine Association of Doctors for the Environment (AAMMA) warns of the inadequate and indiscriminate use of pesticides, a lack of protection for the workers who handle them, and for their families, and the accumulation of contaminated containers on farms, plantations and orchards.

Pesticides and fertilisers can pollute the soil and both surface and underground water sources, and pose risks to living beings, says the report on "the problem of agrochemicals and their containers and their effect on the health of workers, the exposed population and the environment".

The study, carried out with contributions from the Health Ministry, the Secretariat of the Environment and Sustainable Development, and several universities, says the inappropriate handling of these products is "a serious environmental and health problem" in Argentina that is causing damages that "could be irreversible," especially for children.

Although the results of the research differed from province to province, the proportion of rural workers or farmers who took no safety measures or merely used gloves was generally higher than 80 percent. Most were unaware of the risks posed by the agrochemicals they used, and many purchased the products as dispensed in smaller quantities in unlabelled containers lacking instructions for proper usage.

Around 15 percent of the farmers interviewed in the eastern province of Buenos Aires said they knew people who were "resistant" to pesticides and handled them without gloves. This was described by the authors as a popular misconception among farmers who often fail to understand that symptoms sometimes only show up in the long-term.

A large proportion of the respondents also said they know people who had been intoxicated in accidents.

In addition, many of the interviewees were unaware of, or simply did not follow, the regulations for disposing of empty agrochemical containers, which must be washed three times and then perforated so that they cannot be reused.

Most of the containers end up in piles on unused fields around farms or are buried or burnt, with the subsequent polluting effect on the environment. In some low-income rural or semi-urban areas, people even use the empty containers to haul water.

According to the study, the problem is a serious one because the funding is lacking for carrying out local research showing a direct link between the improper handling of pesticides and health effects that can show up decades after contact, or even in future generations in the case of pregnant women exposed to pesticides or fertilisers.

In the meantime, "in light of the real magnitude and urgency of the problem," the researchers recommend campaigns to inform people about the correct handling of such products and the risks they pose, as well as training, both for farmers and workers who use them and health professionals who must properly diagnose the symptoms of exposure to toxic agrochemicals. (END/2008)

Australia: A 'final' warning

Country News (Australia), February 18 2008.

Two Canadian farmers have warned that once Australia introduces GM canola, the country would be "GM forever".

Farmers from Berrigan, Savernake, Finley, Jerilderie and Tocumwal along with Member for Murray-Darling John Williams and farmers from surrounding areas attended the forum at Corowa.

Guest speakers Terry Boehm, a grain farmer and vice-president of the Canadian Farmers Union, and Arnold Taylor, a farmer of 25 years from the Saskatchewan province of Canada, shared their experience of growing GM canola.

"We didn't realise what we were getting into," Mr Boehm said.

"Canada is now a GM country. If we had a choice, we wouldn't have become a GM nation.

"Contamination takes place rapidly, there are many legal disputes over responsibility and ownership and we lost the European (export) market soon after GM canola was introduced to Canada. It was ultimately the end for our crops."

The moratorium on planting GM canola expires at the end of February, paving the way for commercial production with the approval of Primary Industries Minister Ian Macdonald.

The forum was told that before Australia commits to growing genetically-engineered herbicide-tolerant canola, it has an opportunity to learn from Canada, where it has been grown commercially for more than a decade.

Both Canadian farmers said they had experienced "widespread contamination" of their crops by genetically modified canola.

"If you go down this road, you will be a GM country forever," Mr Taylor said.

"Australia, being a continent and non-GM, has a huge marketing advantage over other countries. There is no way we can separate GM from non-GM now in Canada," he said.

Wagga-based lawyer Kevin Foley said he was very concerned about the legal implications and liability in regards to GM seed.

"There are enormous areas for litigation, such as farmers suing farmers for contamination. We are opening a Pandora's box in litigation if we go down the GM path," Mr Foley said.

EU clashes over authorising GMO maize types, potato

Reuters, Feb 18 2008

BRUSSELS, Feb 18 (Reuters) - European Union farm ministers fell short of a consensus agreement on Monday to allow imports of five genetically modified (GMO) products, paving the way for default approval by legal rubberstamp, an EU official said.

The products were four insect-resistant GMO maize types, including three hybrids developed by U.S. biotech company Monsanto Co from existing GMOs. The other maize, GA21, is marketed by Swiss agrochemicals company Syngenta.

The other GMO product was a high-starch potato made by German chemicals group BASF and known as Amflora.

None of the five GMOs is intended for growing in Europe's fields but for use in food and animal feed. The applications for EU approval will return to the European Commission for a default approval, allowed under EU law when ministers fail to agree. (Reporting by Jeremy Smith; editing by Dale Hudson)

Genetically modified organisms: Unmodified opinion

Warsaw Business Journal, 18 February 2008

Poland will stick to the previous government's plans to ban GMOs in fodder

The Polish government will not amend the April 2006 act banning the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in livestock feed, Agriculture Minister Marek Sawicki said at a recent press conference. The announcement came despite earlier plans by the Civic Platform-led government to change the incoming law to comply with European Union rules.

According to the legislation introduced by the previous government, farmers will not be allowed to use GMOs in fodder as of August 12 of this year. However, imports of GMOs will still be accepted with the proviso that they will be appropriately marked and will not be processed further.

The European Commission has taken the issue to the European Court of Justice, having found fault with the proposed law. It claimed Poland has not provided scientific evidence of risks to the environment or people. Poland therefore cannot exercise the right granted by the EU rules to apply a "safeguard" clause against GMO products.

However, the Government Information Centre (CIR) of the Chancellery of the Prime Minister released a statement that the Polish government would take the EC's decision to the Court of First Instance. It claimed that the EC took too long to reject the draft act on GMOs. Moreover, the EC made the decision on October 12 last year but neglected to tell Poland for months. The government hopes for an annulment of the decision.

Earlier this month the minister announced that Poland would make planting of GMO seeds almost impossible for local farmers. "We will delay the farming of genetically modified animal feed as much as possible because there is no social acceptance for it," the Agriculture Minister told Reuters. According to a Greenpeace survey, as many as 76 percent of Polish consumers are against GMOs.

Sawicki added, "According to EU law we cannot forbid it but we can make it as difficult as possible, setting additional requirements, such as obtaining permission by neighbors."

Consequences of GM crop contamination 'are set to worsen'

The Guardian, February 18 2008. BY James Randerson in Boston.

The consequences of contamination between GM crops and non-GM varieties will be much more serious with the next generation of GM crops, an influential group of US scientists has warned.

Mixing between GM and non-GM varieties has already caused serious economic losses for producers in lost sales and exports. But the consequences of mixing will be much more serious with new crops that are altered to produce pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals, the scientists argue. The crops could harm human health and be toxic to wild animals.

"What would be the impact societally, economically if for example, cornflakes were contaminated by some sort of drug or chemical? I think it would be a vast impact economically," said Karen Perry Stillerman, senior food and environment programme analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists.

"I think it's really hard to say [what impact contamination would have] because there is a variety of different drugs and chemicals that might be manufactured in plants this way," she added. "Our perception is that some of them might be toxic, but all of them would certainly cause tremendous economic upheaval."

The group presented its findings at the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Boston.

Huge research effort

Up to now, commercial GM varieties have been restricted mainly to modifications for herbicide tolerance or resistance to pests. But a huge research effort is going into a new generation of crops that are genetically modified to produce drugs, hormones, vaccines and industrial chemicals such as the precursors of plastics.

Although public opinion in Britain and the rest of Europe remains firmly against GM crops in general, it is more favourable to crops with medical benefits. But the Union of Concerned Scientists said that these are precisely the crops that pose the greatest risks if they exchange genes with wild relatives or conventional versions of the same crop.

So-called "pharma crops" can offer advantages over current methods of drug manufacture. Vaccines produced this way could be grown cheaply in developing countries and simply given to patients in the food. That would remove the need for sterile needles and refrigerators to keep vaccine doses cold - a major obstacle for delivering therapies in poor countries.

Prof Paul Gepts, a plant geneticist at the University of California, Davis, said past experience suggests that "contamination" events cannot be avoided. "Gene flow is really a regular occurrence among plants. So if you put a gene out there it's going to escape. It's going to go to other varieties of the same crop or to its wild relatives," he said. "It's clear that zero contamination is impossible at present."

Major economic losses

There have been a handful of examples in the US and elsewhere of genes from GM varieties not cleared for human consumption getting into nearby food crops and hence the human food chain. This has led to major economic losses for producers in lost sales, exports and clean-up costs, but there have been no proven cases of damage to human health.

"With the products we are talking about, there's the potential for that to be much more serious than what we have seen so far," said Prof Robert Wisner at Iowa State University.

According to Gepts, most of the ideas for keeping crops apart are inadequate, because pollen and seed are carried on the wind, by animals and birds and on farm machinery. He said the only way to be sure that food crops would not be contaminated by drug genes or genes for industrial chemicals would be to use non-food crops such as tobacco.

Alternatively, GM food plants could be grown in greenhouses or underground to prevent pollen escaping, he said.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is calling on the US Department of Agriculture to ban the growth of GM pharma crops outdoors unless they are species that are not eaten by people or livestock.

The USDA is currently putting together new guidelines on GM that are expected to be completed by the end of the year. Currently, no GM crops that produce industrial chemicals or pharma crops are grown commercially, although there are some field trials under way in the US.

Similar issues will apply in the UK and Europe if pharma crops are approved. So far, though, only a handful of GM crop varieties are grown in Europe.

Ireland: EU ministers to vote on GM potato

Irish Examiner, 18 February 2008. By Ann Cahill, Europe Correspondent.

EU AGRICULTURE ministers will vote today on a highly controversial GM potato that, according to the World Health Organisation, could make people resistant to some antibiotics used to treat bacterial infections.

The vote will be a test of Ireland's GM-free status insisted on by the Green PartyÌs programme for government with Fianna Fáil.

The Environment Minister and Green Party leader John Gormley voted against allowing the GM potato a few months ago while Agriculture Minister Mary Coughlan normally abstains in such votes.

The potato, developed by the German chemical company BASF, contains a marker gene nptll, that according to the WHO and the EU Medicines Agency, can induce resistance to two families of antibiotics they say are "critically important for veterinary and human use".

Greenpeace also notes the gene nptll was supposed to have been phased out by December 2004 under EU legislation because of its adverse effect on human health and the environment.

But the EU Food Safety Authority has said the potato is safe and this is the report that will be considered by agriculture ministers when they meet today in Brussels to discuss allowing it and four varieties of GM maize.

The ministers are expected to be split on the decision again with insufficient countries voting. If this is the case, the European Commission will be forced to decide and it is expected to go with the EFSA recommendation.

GM-Free Ireland Network launched a broadside against Fine Gael's agriculture spokesperson, Michael Creed, for saying the Government's GM free stance was unsustainable.

He claimed the failure to permit certain GM products for animal feed cost Irish farmers €150 million and demanded an end to what he called lies and scare mongering in the GM debate.

Network spokesperson, Michael O'Callaghan, said: "His suggestion that we have to face up to what he calls the reality of GM foods whether we like it or not comes directly from the biotech industry's current public relations strategy designed to convince people there is nothing you can do to stop the GM invasion".

The Network also described Mr Creed's statement that GM was needed to feed the world and cope with global climate change as "akin to belief in Leprechauns".

17 February 2008

BASF gene-altered potato is dividing EU

International Herald Tribune, February 17 2008. By James Kanter.

PARIS: Call it Europe's hottest potato.

The Amflora potato looks like any garden-variety spud, but it has been genetically modified by the German chemical giant BASF to be unusually rich in starch. It also has aroused concerns that sick people and the elderly could become more vulnerable to disease because there are fears that the potato could trigger resistance to certain antibiotics in humans.

"The biotechnology industry threatens to set an extremely worrying example if it wins approval for this potato," said Patrice Courvalin, the head of the Antibacterial Agents Unit at the medical research center Institut Pasteur in Paris. "We should keep trying to prevent dissemination of antibiotic resistance rather than to allow products into the food chain that could potentially make a bad situation even worse."

European Union governments are touchy about the potato, too.

On Monday, EU farm ministers are expected to hit a deadlock over whether to authorize the potato, exposing a deepening rift between those Europeans who say gene-altered products are a boon to farmers and to industry, and those who say that the technology is potentially hazardous to humans and could pose dangers to the environment.

Officials at the European Commission, the EU executive, already have deemed the potato safe. These officials want to introduce more gene-altered products into the EU to normalize trade relations with countries like the United States, and to lower costs for farmers.

But many governments in Europe are extremely wary of continuing distrust among those citizens who consider gene-altered products to be "Frankenstein" foods. Experts say that some countries may even be hardening their longstanding opposition to the technology.

"The debate in Europe appears to be heading toward stalemate," Jacqueline Mailly, senior European regulatory affairs adviser at the law firm Hogan & Hartson in Brussels, said. "If you take the Austrians, for example, they now appear to be standing firmer than ever against biotechnology."

Mailly said countries like Austria originally opposed gene-altered products on principle and for scientific reasons, but that they now were backing increasingly vibrant traditional farming and organic producers who see the introduction of gene-altered crops as a threat to their way of life and brand identity.

BASF developed the Amflora potato to yield large quantities of starch suitable for making glossy paper products and for feeding animals.

BASF worked jointly to develop the potato with the European starch industry, which was seeking to improve its competitiveness.

The license fees for the potato eventually could earn BASF up to §30 million, or $44 million, annually if allowed onto the European market, said Susanne Benner, a spokeswoman for the company. So far, she said, Amflora has not been planted commercially anywhere in the world.

BASF included the controversial marker gene during the development of the potato as a way of identifying plant cells that successfully produced the desired type of starch.

EU officials recommended putting the potato onto the market after the European Food Safety Authority, an agency in Parma, Italy, that reports to the European Commission on food safety issues, said that antibiotics affected by the marker gene - kanamycin and neomycin - had none, or only a minor relevance to medicine.

On Friday, Mireille Thom, a European Commission spokeswoman, reiterated that the "potato does not pose a problem to human or animal health or to the environment." But scientists like Courvalin and the environmental group Greenpeace said that the EU and the food safety authority were badly out of step with other health bodies.

They pointed out that the World Health Organization in 2005 classified the antibiotics affected by the resistance gene as "critically important" and that last year the European Medicines Agency, a regulatory agency for medicines based in London and also known as EMEA, said that classifying the antibiotics "as of no or only minor therapeutic relevance" was wrong.

In its conclusions, EMEA also noted that the antibiotics could become extremely important in treating certain forms of tuberculosis.

Courvalin said he was concerned that if the gene passed to bacteria in the environment or in the gut of animals that ate the potato and it then evolved, antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains could appear with the potential to have a negative effect on human and animal health.

Courvalin said that it had not yet been proven that such genes from genetically modified organisms could transfer to human bacteria, but he stressed that lack of evidence did not mean it would not happen.

He said environmental and gut bacteria can be responsible for human infections in a growing portion of the population that includes people having surgery, those with AIDS, those being treated with chemotherapy and, most important, the elderly.

The biotechnology industry, which insists that its products are as safe as non-gene-altered equivalents, has long been frustrated by delays in approving such products that cost it time and money, and block access to European markets.

Companies like BASF and Syngenta, which is based in Switzerland, say that an unfavorable political climate for gene-altered technologies is hindering the introduction of products that could make the region more competitive.

"Biotech crops are grown on nearly 10 percent of the world's arable land," Stefan Marcinowski, a member of the board at BASF, said last week. "Only Europe is increasingly lagging behind."

The United States and Argentina have strongly backed the gene-altered industry by bringing complaints against Europe at the World Trade Organization - one factor that pushed EU officials to seek a way to make it easier to market biotech crops and foods in Europe.

Some farmers and meat producers also are pushing EU officials to back the technology as population demands, land scarcity and drought drive up the price of animal feed on global markets.

On Monday, the ministers will consider applications for four insect-resistant gene-altered types of corn used in food and feed, as well as the BASF potato. But a clearcut decision is unlikely: EU countries at similar meetings have failed to reach the majority needed to vote through, or completely reject, new approvals of gene-altered crops.

In such cases, the European Commission then is entitled to give its approval. That means that the potato could soon be on the market in Europe - albeit through a highly circuitous regulatory process. Even then, however, EU countries can invoke so-called safeguard clauses to block the cultivation or sale of gene-altered crops.

Although BASF could get backing from countries like Britain and the Netherlands that look favorably on gene-altered crops, it is unlikely to be sufficient for approval on Monday.

Development of transgenic food staples slow: World Bank

Financial Express (India), 18 February 2008. By Ashok B. Sharma.

New Delhi, Feb 17 The World Bank has expressed concerns over the slow progress in the development of transgenic food staples and called for the removal of related constraints.

It said that the transgenics or the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have considerable potential for improving the productivity of smallholder farming systems and providing more nutritious foods to poor consumers in developing countries.

"The environmental, food safety, and social risks of transgenics are controversial and therefore transparent and cost-effective regulatory systems that inspire public confidence are needed to evaluate risks and benefits case by case," it admitted.

In its World Development Report-2008, it noted, "While Bt cotton has been rapidly and successfully adopted in Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu, farmers in Andhra Pradesh initially experienced a loss, largely because of the use of poorly adapted varieties (hybrids)." In general, the report said that Indian farmers growing Bt cotton used less insecticides and gained significant yield increases.

The report, with its theme - Agriculture for Development - made a strong plea for commercial cultivation of Golden Rice. It said that in India alone, 0.2 to 1.4 million life-years could be saved annually through widespread consumption of Golden Rice and this would be more cost-effective than the current supplementary programme for vitamin A.

The World Bank said that while developing transgenics pro-poor traits and orphan crops have been neglected. Investments in R&D on transgenics are concentrated largely in the private sector, driven by commercial interests in industrial countries.

The public sector spending on R&D is much lower than the $1.5 billion spent each year by the four largest private Companies.

The report also noted the complexities of trade in transgenics. Exporters fear the loss of overseas Markets and of a "GMO-free" brand. It called for competence in managing and release and use of transgenics with open information disclosures, labelling (wherever feasible), and a consultative process, critical for harnessing public support.

16 February 2008

Brazil: GM Maize 'Worst Tragedy' of Lula Administration - NGOs

Inter Press Service, February 16 2008. By Fabiana Frayssinet.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Feb 16 (IPS) - Non-governmental organisations actively involved in the Campaign for a GM-Free Brazil are protesting against what they call "the worst tragedy" to befall the country during the government of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva: the release for cultivation and sale of two transgenic varieties of maize.

The decision to authorise the LibertyLink and MON810 genetically modified (GM) maize seeds, made by the German company Bayer and U.S. biotech giant Monsanto, respectively, was reached this week at a meeting of the National Biosafety Council (CNBS), made up of 11 ministries, with seven votes in favour and four against.

The CNBS thus confirmed the authorisation decided in January by the National Biosafety Technical Commission (CTNBio).

This is the first time commercial-scale cultivation of transgenic maize has been allowed in the country. The only other GM crops that have received authorisation are soybeans and cotton.

The press relations office of the Science and Technology Ministry, which announced the Commission's decision, declined to comment.

Journalists were referred to a press conference given by the minister earlier this week, and it was suggested that they consult the official communiques and the expert opinions on which the decision was based.

On his official website, Science and Technology Minister Sergio Rezende, who voted in favour of the decision, argues that both the newly-authorised GM varieties of maize are resistant to herbicides and to insects, and are 30 to 40 percent more productive than conventional maize.

The minister was enthusiastic about the prospect of "entering a new stage in the advancement of science," and stressed that the decisive factor for approving the release of transgenic maize was the strength of the evidence in the research cited by CTNBio that it is not harmful to human or animal health or to the environment.

However, this was not the view expressed behind the scenes by other ministers on the Council.

Although voting was secret, some ministers who disagreed with the outcome revealed their position, demonstrating a split in the Lula administration over this issue.

Word got out that those who voted in favour were the Science and Technology minister, his colleagues in the Agriculture, Foreign, Development, Defence and Justice Ministries, and the ministerial-rank chief of staff. The ministers of Health, Environment, Agricultural Development and Aquaculture and Fisheries voted against the measure.

An article on the official CTNBio website confirmed the press reports, saying the Health Minister, Jose Gomes Temporao, wanted further studies on the possibility that these varieties of maize might be toxic or allergenic.

At the CNBS meeting, two appeals were considered, from the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) and from the state Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), but both were overruled.

Environment Minister Marina Silva, who opposes cultivation of transgenic species, chose not to even attend the meeting.

"We have lost some battles with the government before," MarÌa Jose da Costa, of the Small Farmers Movement (MPA), told IPS. "But in our view, this is the greatest tragedy of the Lula government." she said.

MPA and other organisations like the international Via Campesina are part of the Campaign for a GM-Free Brazil.

The Campaign sent a letter to Justice Minister Tarso Genro protesting the Commission's decision, taken in spite of the ANVISA and IBAMA appeals.

The two appeals called for the cancellation of the technical authorisation given by CNTBio in January because, for one thing, the data presented did not support the conclusion that human consumption of MON810 maize was safe.

IBAMA's appeal said that the CNTBio decision should be overturned because of "the many procedural flaws" in the research, including the lack of any environmental studies.

Like transgenic Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans, MON810 maize is resistant to an herbicide, glyphosate, used on the crops. Cultivating these maize seeds with liberal applications of the herbicide could cause the same kind of environmental and agricultural problems already caused by planting GM soybeans, IBAMA said.

IBAMA cited its own studies carried out in the southern state of Rio Grande do Sul, which found that glyphosate traces in the environment increased by 650 percent over the period 2000-2004, at the time when RR soybean cultivation was expanding.

The letter from the Campaign for a GM-Free Brazil also said that sowing transgenic maize will inevitably contaminate native varieties of maize, which can be grown organically and are ecologically sound.

The measure, it said, is a "flagrant and unconstitutional imposition that sets the economic interests of companies interested in growing GM maize commercially above the health of the population, the need to protect the environment, and also the interests of farmers and consumers who do not want to plant or eat transgenic foods."

According to da Costa, considering the "harm done to people" due to soybeans and other transgenic crops in Brazil, "the disasters that will be caused by the authorisation of GM maize will be of far greater proportions."

She said that maize, in particular, which was first domesticated in Latin America, will now suffer "a great loss of biodiversity, as well as genetic degeneration and impoverishment."

The leader said that native seeds cultivated by small farmers and indigenous peoples "run the risk of disappearing through cross-contamination."

Unlike soybean plants which are almost entirely self-pollinating, maize is generally cross-fertilised, and its pollen "can be carried several kilometres and contaminate other types of maize at great distances, transported by insects and the wind," she said.

Furthermore, she said, farmers will have no legal recourse for any complaints against contamination of their crops, because jurisdiction is unclear.

And if contamination of their maize does occur, they will have to resort to other seeds, and they will become dependent on the transgenic species, because GM seeds are designed to produce a second generation of seeds that will not germinate.

"The food sovereignty of small farmer communities will be endangered, because they will have to buy seeds outside the community, and they will have to pay royalties to the transgenic seed companies," said da Costa. At present, farmers save their seed from year to year for the next planting.

She also called attention to the technical studies cited by the Science and Technology Ministry in support of the authorisation of transgenic maize, noting that most of them were carried out abroad, and fail to take into account the uniqueness of Brazil's diverse ecosystems.

Another matter of deep concern to opponents of the measure is the risk to human health, especially the possibility of allergic and toxic reactions, raised in the ANVISA appeal.

According to a decree issued in 2003, products containing more than one percent of transgenic ingredients must be duly labelled for the information of consumers.

But in practice, with the exception of two brands of oil, which are only labelled because pressure was exerted by consumer defence organisations, this decree is not respected, Andrea Salazar, a legal consultant for the Sao Paulo-based Brazilian Institute for Consumer Defence, a nation-wide consumer association, told IPS.

"We think that the government's decision is highly irresponsible. It's a political decision against the appeals presented by IBAMA and ANVISA," she said.

Salazar said that LibertyLink maize has a gene for antibiotic resistance which is "totally condemned by the Health Ministry and international health-related and scientific organisations," and that there is insufficient proof that transgenic maize will not cause problems connected with toxicity and allergies.

Both da Costa and Salazar mentioned several countries which originally authorised transgenic maize but later changed their minds, including France, Hungary and Austria.

France based its decision on the need for further studies, da Costa said, adding that this was the stance taken by a country with "a conservative government," and a president (Nicolas Sarkozy) "who supported transgenic research during his election campaign." (END/2008)

UK: GM crop trial locations may be hidden from public
Government plans clampdown on vandalism after lobbying from biotech firms

The Guardian, February 16 2008. By Ian Sample, science correspondent.

Genetically modified crops may be grown in hidden locations in Britain amid fears that anti-GM campaigners are winning the battle over the controversial technology, the Guardian has learned.

Officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) confirmed they are looking at a range of options to clamp down on vandalism to GM crop trials, after intense lobbying by big crop biotech companies. The firms have warned that trials of GM crops are becoming too expensive to conduct in Britain because of the additional costs of protecting fields from activists.

This week, a report from the GM industry claimed that worldwide agricultural use of genetically modified crops had increased 70-fold in the last 10 years to 114m hectares in 2007.

But fears of vandalism have forced many companies to shift their crop trials abroad. Last year, only one trial went ahead in Britain, a blight-resistant GM potato developed by the German company BASF. Two activists were arrested for damage to the trial site, which was later almost completely destroyed in a night raid.

BASF plans to repeat the trial this year, at the National Institute of Agricultural Botany in Cambridgeshire. Another trial is planned by scientists at Leeds University.

A group representing the major biotech companies has asked the government to oversee specific changes to the GM trial process that would make fields of crops harder for activists to locate. Under existing laws, full details of every GM crop trial must be disclosed in advance on a government website, with a six-figure grid reference identifying the precise location of the field.

The group has asked Defra to keep details of locations on a register, which would only be shared with people who apply and who can prove they have good reason to know. Another option is to release only a four-figure reference for the trial site.

"These trials are legal, so why give carte blanche to anyone who wants to destroy them? In most countries, there is nothing like the sort of specific information that has to be given in Britain," said Julian Little of the industry group, the Agricultural Biotechnology Council. The need to give the location of a GM crop is contained in a European directive, but it is interpreted differently across member states.

The GM companies are also keen to see stiffer penalties for activists caught damaging crop trials.

"We have to sort out the framework under which we're allowed to do trials. If Britain is to benefit from GM technology, we have to have crop trials in Britain. There's no use second-guessing how a crop will fare here from what has been done elsewhere," Little said. "We have to start looking at how to produce a large amount of food on a small amount of land with a minimal environmental footprint and for that you need new technology."

Some GM companies fear future crop trials are in greater danger because of what they claim is a "broadening out" of anti-GM activists to include anti-globalisation and possibly animal rights campaigners. British anti-GM activists have also developed links with European groups that hold training camps to share tactics, such as crossing police lines and gaining access to fields. In France and Germany, crop trashings have increased substantially as farmers have taken to growing GM crops.

Defra officials said making it harder to identify trial sites was not a straightforward process.

Only one GM crop is approved for cultivation in Europe, an insect-resistant maize, which is grown on about 110,000 hectares in member states. It is not grown in Britain because the corn pest it protects against is not found in this country. A second crop, a potato, is in the final stages of approval in Brussels, but it would only be used to produce starch for the paper industry and would probably be grown in Germany and the Czech Republic.

UK: Biotech firm mans barricades as campaigners vow to stop trials
Small field near Cambridge the latest battleground in fight to prevent GM trials

The Guardian, February 16 2008. By Ian Sample, science correspondent.

On the outskirts of Cambridge, a field little bigger than a football pitch is about to become the latest GM battleground. On one side is a multinational company, intent on planting a test crop of genetically modified potatoes. On the other, a group of anti-GM campaigners that has vowed to do its best to prevent the trial.

The company behind the trial, BASF, will begin planting the potatoes in the next month or two. And in preparation for the activists' arrival, they are reviewing all the usual deterrents. The local constabulary has been alerted, a court injunction might be drawn up, and hundreds of metal fences are waiting to be locked together, to make a protective shield around the field.

Not that the measures are expected to do much good, of course. Last year, the company attempted an identical trial, and despite a security fence, round-the-clock guards and a court injunction, the plants were ripped up in an overnight raid. A week before, the police arrested two activists for damaging the site at the National Institute for Agricultural Botany, an organisation whose business is to conduct field trials of all kinds of crops. One protester had climbed on the security fence, which collapsed under his weight. The activists have sworn to return this year to pull up any freshly-planted crops they can.

So far, it could easily be a re-run of the anti-GM protests of the late 1990s. But a Guardian investigation has found that the battle over GM Britain is set to intensify. Buoyed by a surge in GM crop growing around the world, biotech companies are lobbying governments hard for help in breaking down the last bastions of resistance, here and elsewhere. Meanwhile, British anti-GM activists have grown stronger, linking up with groups in Europe, and even joining in "field liberation camps" on the continent to train and discuss their strategies.

This week, a report from the GM industry claimed that GM crops worldwide have soared almost 70-fold in the past 10 years, to 114m hectares, an area predicted to double by 2015. Greenpeace said the report, from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, was "propaganda" and "littered with false claims and manipulated statistics". The campaign group counters that of the 1.5bn hectares of arable land on the planet, more than 92% is cultivated without GM crops, and more than 99% of farmers do not resort to GM crops.

Within industry, some believe the anti-GM campaign is becoming a different beast from the one they faced at the beginning of the GM wars. Then it was the likes of the former Labour minister, Lord Melchett, who in 1999 led Greenpeace activists onto Walnut Farm in Norfolk and used lawn mowers to shred crops while farmers fought back, turning their tractors into battering rams. Now, they say, there are hints that the anti-GM movement is swelling to embrace anti-globalisation activists more familiar with the World Economic Forum in Davos, and perhaps animal rights activists, who have seen laws around anti-vivisection protests tightened in the past two years. "We're getting more activists, and the activists seem to be broadening out," said Chris Wilson of BASF.

The GM crop trial at Cambridge is one of only two expected to go ahead in Britain this year. The other, a nematode-resistant potato developed by Leeds University, uses a synthetic gene for the first time. Both crops could improve farmers' yields substantially, and reduce the amount of pest repellent or insecticide they needed to spray. The BASF potato contains a gene taken from a wild relative that makes it resilient to potato blight, the fungus that devastated Ireland's potato crop in the 1840s and continues to cost British farmers £50m a year. The Leeds University potato produces an antibiotic to combat nematode worms that cause an estimated £43m damage a year in the UK.

In a parting shot late last year, Sir David King, the government's former chief science adviser, put the cost of Britain's failure to embrace GM crops at £4bn.

Biotech companies claim the financial benefit of GM crops is often even greater outside the UK, and is behind many countries choosing to adopt the technology. Globally, the amount of land given over to GM crops increases by an area equivalent to nearly half the size of Britain every year. To strengthen their cause, multinationals such as Monsanto, Bayer CropScience and Syngenta argue that GM technology is at least part of the solution to problems of food inflation, food security and even global warming.

"There's a clear recognition around the world that GM is doing the job," said Julian Little of the agricultural biotechnology council, a GM industry group.

Though biotech companies can point to successes, Europe has become a serious headache. Across the EU, more than 110,000 hectares of GM crops were grown last year, a 77% increase on the year before. But so far, only one crop has been approved in 10 years, an insect-resistant maize developed by Monsanto, and most of it is grown in Spain. Enthusiasm for the crops varies enormously, from a Slovakian zeal that saw GM crop farming rise 2,900% last year, albeit from a small base, to Britain and other countries which have so far proved impenetrable.

This year, Europe will begin to feel punitive measures from the US, Canada and Argentina after falling foul of World Trade Organisation rules when some member states banned GM unilaterally. Last month, a scientific panel convened by the French government ruled there were serious doubts over Monsanto's GM maize crop, allowing President Nicolas Sarkozy to invoke a safeguard clause and join them. The move followed a hunger strike by the veteran activist and moustachioed farmers' leader JosÈ BovÈ, protesting against more than 21,000 hectares of GM crops planted commercially in France last year. Further fines are due in protest against hold-ups in Brussels, where more than 40 crops are stuck in a backlog of bureaucracy, awaiting to be approved.

Political blocks are only part of the problem though. The picture from Europe is that the growth of GM is being matched by rising activism, and previously isolated groups have begun linking across borders and into Britain to form a united front. In France and Germany last year, GM crop planting rose 323% and 183% respectively, but both countries witnessed their largest rise in activism too.

In France, the number of crop trials owned by Monsanto that were attacked last year reached 65%, up from 45% in 2004. There, clashes over GM became a running disaster last year. In August, activists ripped up crops in one field, costing Monsanto an estimated £ 100,000. Later the same month, gendarmes used tear gas and batons to keep pro-GM farmers away from a picnic being held by anti-GM campaigners in the town of Verdun-sur-Garonne in south-west France. The campaigners, led by BovÈ, claim a citizen's right to destroy GM crops, which they believe are an environmental hazard and threaten to leave farmers reliant on the whims of a few multinational companies. Tensions had reached a new high after one farmer, who had agreed to grow a small plot of GM maize, committed suicide a few days after being warned that anti-GM activists planned to occupy his fields. The situation, according to Nathalie Moll of the biotech organisation, EuropaBio, has become a "witch hunt."

In Germany, attacks have also risen steadily. The country's main anti-GM group, Gendreck Weg! - Off with genetic dregs! - claims responsibility for around 30 attacks last year, up from six in 2004.

Michael Grolm, a co-founder of Gendreck Weg!, says the group's aim for the past four years has been to unite GM activists across Europe. They have developed strong links to BovÈ's organisation in France, and to others in Britain, Poland and Hungary and elsewhere. Grolm makes a living from beekeeping and sees GM crops as a direct threat to his livelihood. "If my honey is contaminated with GM, no one will buy it. I won't be able to live from it," he said.

The organisation has started a campaign that centres around one spectacular public crop trashing a year. In the days beforehand, they hold a "field liberation camp" and invite activists from all over Europe to share experiences and discuss tactics.

Afterwards, anyone who wants to can join the trashing, which is tracked by the organisations own lawyers. "We show films, we cook organic food and we have special training to get on to the fields without fighting the police," said Grolm.

Jürgen Binder, another co-founder, is one of around 70 Gendreck Weg! protesters that have been arrested for the organisation's activities. He is facing 90 years in prison for calling for civil disobedience. "If I go to prison, then I go to prison. Of course, we will have our demonstration in front, we have our message to get across," he said.

Invites for this year's camp - tentatively planned for July and probably in southern Germany - will be going out shortly, via regional contacts in each country. In Britain, the task of herding activists along to the camp is down to Gerald Miles, a pig farmer from Mathry in Pembrokeshire, who founded GM Free Cymru and five years ago spent a week driving to London on his tractor to take part in an anti-GM protest. "There is a movement now. We've all got similar actions and campaigns going on and we can help each other out. The UK has been at the forefront of this, so Europe has been looking to the UK as experienced campaigners," he said. "More and more of us see this as a European issue and creating a GM free Europe is our main goal. We are a network now, we work together."

In Britain, the strength of opposition has left multinationals exasperated at what they feel is a gift to the activists. For every crop trial they plan, they must publish a six-figure grid reference that clearly identifies the location of the field. "In the UK, transparency of locations is a real problem. Many farmers are not growing GM because they're afraid people will come and trash their fields," said Moll.

Last year, BASF planned to conduct its GM potato trial at two sites, the second being a farm in Derbyshire. The trial was scrapped after the field location was made public and the farmer pulled out. The company attempted to shift the trial to Yorkshire, but cancelled again after neighbouring farmers raised concerns it might contaminate their borage crops, a plant used to produce starflower oil for the health food supplements.

The obligation to give crop locations is enshrined in a European directive, which industry groups claim was introduced in the most draconian way possible by Michael Meacher, Tony Blair's anti-GM former environment minister. Elsewhere in Europe, fields are not pinpointed so clearly, with companies giving only the region in which a trial will take place, or submitting the details to a tightly-controlled public register.

Here, industry groups have asked government to do more to help protect their crop trials. They favour a public register of trials, but want the information on it released only to people who can prove they have a legitimate interest, such as neighbouring organic farmers. It would not stop the attacks, but it might reduce them by effectively hiding the fields, the companies believe.

"We've been very clear to government. We have to find a way of reducing the amount of damage you get when you do a field trial in the UK, that's absolutely imperative. Our view is we need greater security, or we need to reduce the visibility of the trials. Second, when people are caught causing illegal damage to crops, they need to face the full power of the law," said Little.

Environment officials confirm they are considering a broad range of options to reduce the risk of crop trashing, but add that making fields harder to find is not straightforward, because of the strict guidelines laid down in the EU directive.

At BASF, Chris Wilson said the company was looking forward to getting this year's trial underway. What results they got from last year's trial were encouraging, he said. "After the experience of last year, we do have to think about how to protect the site and what we can do differently, but 24 hour guards and fences cost a lot of money," he said.

One activist, Martin Shaw, who was charged with causing damage to the fence surrounding BASF's trial last year said the protests would continue as long as there were trials. "Personally, I intend to pull up as many crops this year as I can," he said.

UK: Key players

The Guardian, February 16 2008

Hilary Benn

The environment minister says his approach is guided by scientific evidence. He believes there is no suggestion that GM crops are unsafe to eat, but adds it will be some years before they are grown in Britain.

Robert Watson

The government's chief environment scientist believes GM crops have potential in Britain, but says there are safety questions over the spread of genes from modified crops.

Julian Little

The chairman of the industry's Agricultural Biotechnology Council claims GM crops are the most rigorously tested of all and sees them as crucial for meeting rising food demand. Says the benefits include better yields, reduced costs and less environmental damage.

Jürgen Binder

A professional bee-keeper and co-founder of the German anti-GM group Gendreck Weg, he has been charged with calling for civil disobedience after inviting others to join him in cutting down GM crops.

UK: Timeline: GM crops

The Guardian, February 16 2008. 1983
Scientists create genetically modified tobacco resistant to an antibiotic

1985
First GM crop trials begin around the world, including the UK

1992
Phrase "Frankenfood" coined by Paul Lewis, a US college professor

1993
US Food and Drug Administration allows companies to market GM seed

1994
The first GM food, the Flavr Savr tomato, is approved in the US

1996
GM tomato paste arrives in Britain, prompting backlash from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth

1996
Herbicide-tolerant GM soya bean available in US

1998
Arpad Pusztai claims on TV that GM potatoes harm rats

1999
Britain's field scale trials of herbicide-resistant GM crops begin

1999
Downing Street confirms that Tony Blair has eaten GM food and regards it as safe

2003
Farm scale trials show herbicides used with some GM crops can reduce weeds and seeds eaten by wildlife

2004
GM maize is approved for planting in Britain

2006
German biotech firm BASF gets permission for five-year trial of blight-resistant GM potatoes in Britain

2007
Government backs industry call to bring GM to Britain

UK: Q&A: GM crops
What are genetically modified crops, and should we be concerned about them? David Adam explains

The Guardian, February 16 2008

What are genetically modified crops?

GM crops come in two main types. The first are given a gene that enables them to tolerate herbicides that wipe out all other plants, which allows farmers can spray their crop with a "broad-spectrum" herbicide. The second type are given a gene that lets the plant produce a toxin that kills pests that would usually feed on it, making the GM plant resistant.

Who makes them?

Monsanto produces more than 90% of GM crops worldwide. Companies such as Syngenta, Bayer Cropscience, Dow and BASF make the rest.

How do they do it?

One technique uses a natural soil bacterium called agrobacteria tumefaciens, which naturally infect plants and place some of their own DNA into the plant's genes. Scientists replace these genes with those carrying the useful GM trait, and use them to transform plant cells.

Another method is a gene gun, which fires tiny gold particles coated with genes directly into a plant's cells. Both techniques have a high failure rate, so thousands of attempts are needed.

What crops are grown?

The four main commercial crops grown are soya beans, maize, cotton and oilseed rape. Companies are also looking to develop GM versions of other crops, including rice.

Are they grown in the UK?

There are no GM crops grown commercially in Britain, though there are no legal reasons why companies couldn't apply for the relevant licenses to do so in future. Then it would be up to farmers and whether they believe there would be a demand.

What about experimental trials?

There have been hundreds of small scale outdoor trials of various GM crops, including the government's farm scale evaluations earlier this decade. At the moment, only the company BASF is actively growing GM crops outdoors, a trial of blight-resistant potatoes in Cambridge.

Where are they grown in the world?

GM crops are grown by more than 10m farmers on 252m acres in 22 countries. Spain is the biggest grower in Europe, but there are also significant amounts of crops grown in France, Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Portugal. Around the world, the US, Argentina, Canada and Brazil plant the most, with various amounts grown in China, Australia, Bulgaria, Colombia, Honduras, India, Mexico, South Africa and Uruguay.

Are we eating GM in the UK?

Very few GM products are on sale in Britain. Most supermarkets and food companies have imposed bans on imported GM ingredients such as soya and rape seed oil in processed food, though small quantities may slip in because of contamination earlier in the manufacturing process. There are a handful of clearly labelled GM-containing foods on the shelves, such as bacon flavoured soya chunks. Many dairy products, eggs and meat could have come from animals fed imported GM crops, but they are not considered to be GM produce.

Why the controversy?

Some people object to GM technology because it can be used to create unnatural organisms. For example, a plant can be modified with genes from another species of plant, or even an animal. Another concern is that genes used to modify crops could escape into wild plants, creating "superweeds" that are highly resistant to pests, or alter plants in other ways that might cause damage to the environment. Some worry that GM crops themselves might prove to be harmful to either wildlife or the people who eat the crops. There are also concerns about the accidental contamination of organic produce, which markets itself as GM-free.

What about the advantages?

The companies argue that GM crops can reduce weedkiller use, and improve yields by offering useful resistance to pests and poor growing conditions caused by drought or salinity.

What about their impact on the developing world?

The companies point out there has been a large take-up of GM crops in poorer countries, and regularly claim that GM crops address many of the problems that blight farmers there. Anti-GM campaigners point out that most GM crops are grown for animal food, and massive amounts grown in countries such as Argentina are exported, sometimes at the expense of local food production. They also worry about the control of seeds and agricultural techniques by a handful of multinational companies.

What other types of GM crops are there?

The next generation of GM crops produce drugs and vaccines, called pharming. GM tobacco plants, for example, can churn out a topical medicine against HIV infection. Advocates say the use of plants opens up cheap routes to new medicines. Critics worry about their use of food crops because it might lead to contamination of food supplies.

UK: GM firms seeking crop trial secrecy

Press Association, 16 Feb 2008

Biotechnology firms are lobbying the Government to promise greater secrecy for future genetically-modified crop trials, it has emerged.

They are concerned about the cost of the damage likely to be caused by anti-GM activists if the precise locations of fields hosting experiments continue to be made public.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said it was concerned by the threat to "legitimate research" and was considering options to reduce the risk of GM crops being vandalised.

Under European law the location of GM crops must be published, but biotech firms want Defra to hold the information on a restricted register or release less specific details, the Guardian newspaper reported.

Julian Little, of GM industry group the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, told the paper: "We've been very clear to Government.

"We have to find a way of reducing the amount of damage you get when you do a field trial in the UK, that's absolutely imperative.

"Our view is we need greater security, or we need to reduce the visibility of the trials."

A Defra spokeswoman said: "We are considering options that would reduce the risk of crops being vandalised. However, at present there are no specific plans to change Government policy in this area."

A report published this week showed the global use of GM crops increased by 12% last year to reach 114 million hectares across 23 countries.

15 February 2008

UK: Feed prices could soar 600% 'unless GM approvals in Europe come faster'

Farmers Guardian, 15 Feb 2008

NFU Scotland has said the EU's process for authorising the use of new GM varieties is paralysed and livestock farmers and consumers are set to suffer. The union predicts animal feed price rises of up to 600% unless the EU speeds up the GM authorisation process. It compares the EU to the USA; in the EU, it takes an average of two and a half year for a variety to be approved, while it is just 15 months in the USA. This means feed approved for use in animal feeds and food abroad is not permitted in the EU, threatening EU producers' profitability and export markets. (p.4)

Comment from the Soil Association:

There is no shortage of non-GM feed - just a resistance from supermarkets to insist on non-GM supplies. Since 2001 our largest user of cereals is the poultry sector which has non-GM feed policies, and Brazil is a huge grower of soya at least half of which is non-GM. There is plenty of non-GM soya out there. Feed prices are rising mainly because of speculation on the back of George Bush's nonsensical biofuel subsidies.

Comment from GM Watch:

As we've previously noted, this argument about the slow pace of GM authorisations forcing up animal feed prices just doesn't stack up - quite apart from the ready availability of non-GM feed that the Soil Association notes above.

•

Farmers are struggling with rising animal feed prices in a whole series of countries where they rely on imported animal feed, including countries outside the EU and including countries where they grow GM crops!!

•

The hardest hit European farming sector as a result of animal feed price increases is the pig industry, but their big price hikes have been down to wheat and barley, and shortages of feed wheat, i.e. involve crops that are entirely non-GM!

•

Comparisons with US regulatory time-frames inevitably look bad because the US has an almost non-existent regulatory system for GM. Comparisons with other GM growing countries like Brazil, Argentina and China, throw up quite different conclusions.

Finally, the "600%" figure for animal feed price rises quoted in the article below, is taken from the worst case scenario in the report by the DG Agriculture, which even its authors admit is not reliable: "It should be noted that the worst case scenario yields an impact that goes well beyond the technical limits of the model used for the analysis in the provision of precise and reliable estimations."

For a detailed rebuttal of the claims http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8788

For more on the extraordinary character of the US regulatory system
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8785
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8773

Syngenta: Uncertain About Future Of Brazil GMO Test Center

Dow Jones, February 15 2008. By Tony Danby.

Swiss multinational seed company Syngenta AG remains uncertain about the future of its troubled 128-acre GMO test center in west Parana, said Medard Schoenmaeckers, head of media relations for Syngenta in Europe.

The GMO soybean and corn research lab owned by Syngenta, not far from the large Iguassu National Park, has been dogged by protesting anti-GMO campaigners since 2006.

"We would like to see the protesters leave the site, so that we can decide what to do with it," said Schoenmaeckers.

Activists want to eject Syngenta from the area after an anti-GMO campaigner from the Landless Rural Workers Movement, or MST, was shot to death last year by one of the company's hired security guards.

"Anything is a possibility at the moment, but whilst they (protesters) are there we cannot do anything," said Schoenmaeckers.

To make matters worse, a Brazilian federal court for Parana state decided late in 2007 that Syngenta cannot test transgenic seeds at the test center in Parana state.

The court said that testing of genetically modified organisms within a 10-kilometer buffer zone from Iguassu National Park is illegal.

"We are studying the case to see whether we should appeal," said Schoenmaeckers.

Whatever the outcome, Syngenta - which reported $1.57 billion in revenues in Latin America last year - intends to continue its GMO research and sales in Brazil.

Syngenta said that 5.5% of its total global revenue came from GMOs in 2007, with the largest market being the U.S., followed by Latin America in a distant second position.

Total worldwide revenues during 2007 were $9.24 billion, up 15% on $8.05 billion a year earlier.

Moreover, Syngenta's Latin unit secured a 40% increase for its seeds business in 2007 versus 2006, largely due to farmers' interest in GMOs, according to Schoenmaeckers.

Chief Executive Michael Mack said in a recent television interview that Latin America is expected to drive demand for the company's seed business.

Although most of Syngenta's GMO research is carried out in the U.S. in North Carolina, the company needs to carry out tests in the local climate or soil.

Therefore, Syngenta intends to continue its GMO tests in Brazil such as at Uberlandia and other sites, said Schoenmaeckers.

"GM has clearly a large demand in Brazil and Argentina, and we plan to continue to invest in order to offer our products to farmers," he added.

EU ministers to debate 5 GMO products

Reuters, 15 February 2008. By Jeremy Smith.

uthorizing no fewer than five genetically modified (GMO) products next week but look set to disagree, as usual, paving the way for more default approvals by legal rubberstamp.

On Monday, the ministers will consider applications to authorize four insect-resistant GMO maize types, including three hybrids. None would be for growing but for use in food and feed.

They will also consider approving a potato engineered to produce high amounts of starch for use in industrial processing but whose by-products can also be used within animal feed.

Since the ministers are very unlikely to reach the required majority under the EU's complex weighted voting system either to approved or reject the applications, all five are expected to return to the European Commission for a default approval.

EU law provides for rubberstamp GMO authorizations when ministers are unable to agree after a certain period of time. Since 2004, the Commission has authorized a string of GMOs -- nearly all maize types -- in this way, outraging green groups.

"We do not foresee any debate on this agenda item," said a Slovenian official, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency.

"The information we have at this time is that there won't be a qualified majority for or against. So according to the rules, it will go back to the Commission," he said.

For many years, EU countries have been unable to secure the majority needed to vote through a new GMO approval.

The biotech industry, which insists that its products are as safe as non-GMO equivalents, has long vented its frustration over what it sees as the EU's delay in approving GMOs, saying it loses time and money in not being allowed access to EU markets.

That frustration has been expressed in legal challenges, which have also encouraged the European Commission to re-examine its internal policy on biotech crops and foods.

Maize hybrids

Three GMOs up for approval on Monday are maize hybrids developed by U.S. biotech company Monsanto Co from its existing MON863, MON810 and NK603 product lines for general use in food and animal feed, with no extra genetic modification.

They have been altered to resist pests like rootworm and the European corn borer, and Monsanto's own Roundup Ready herbicide.

The other GMO maize is GA21, originally a Monsanto product but now belonging to Swiss agrochemicals company Syngenta AG, one of the world's largest producers of GMO seeds.

EU approval of GA21 maize is of particular interest to Spanish grain traders, since the modified strain may only now be imported into EU markets in processed form. Syngenta's request for EU approval, if granted, would allow GA21 imports as grain.

The ministers will also discuss a GMO potato made by German chemicals group BASF and known as Amflora. While BASF has filed a separate EU approval request for its high-starch potato to be cultivated, Monday's debate will only deal with an application for by-products from the potato's starch extraction process to be used in animal feed.

(Editing by Chris Johnson)

German biotechnology law jumps last hurdle

GMO Compass, 15 February 2008.

Representing the German federal states ("Länder"), the "Bundesrat" has adopted a new set of rules for the voluntary labelling of "GMO free" animal products and for the cultivation of genetically modified maize. Today's decision was the last step in the legislative procedure which, presumably in spring, results in the enactment of the amended law. It allows animal-derived foods such as meat, milk and eggs to be labelled as "without gene technology", provided that feed used in the production of these foodstuffs contained no genetically modified plants for a given period of time. Nonetheless, animals may have been fed indeed with additives such vitamins or enzymes that were produced with genetically modified organisms.

The state of Hesse failed in its attempt to prevent the "GMO-free" labelling: its call for a conciliation procedure did not find the necessary support among the Länder. Together with a few other states, Hesse criticised such labelling as deceptive. The label "without gene technology" would lead consumers to assume that a product had no contact with biotechnology in any stage of its production, which is not the case. The state of North Rhine-Westphalia complained that the amendment would constrain biotechnological research but also was unable to find enough support for a conciliation procedure.

Strict regulations for the cultivation of genetically modified maize form part of the law package. To avoid cross-pollination, a farmer growing GM crops must keep a minimum distance of 150 metres between his transgenic maize and conventional maize fields. Between GM maize and organic maize fields, this distance is increased to 300 metres. Farmers wishing to cultivate genetically engineered maize must advise their neighbours in writing three months before the intended sowing.

While neighbours may agree to separation distances below recommended values, any such agreement must be reported to the competent federal authority and will be recorded in the nationwide site register.

According to the public register, around 280 German farmers currently plan to seed more than 4,300 hectares of genetically modified maize in 2008. However, the German Farmers Association (DBV) withheld recommendation of GM crops. Such hesitancy is due to farmers' retention of liability, despite the latest amendment and irrespective of negligence or fault.

Scientists find way to scan for cloned meat Fast, cheap tracking technique can ensure an animal is certified clone-free, scientists say

Toronto Star, Feb 15 2008. By Peter Calamai, Science Reporter.

BOSTON - Did that steak come out of a test tube or from a feedlot? Did the chicken in that bucket have both a mother and father?

In other words, is someone trying to feed you meat from cloned animals?

Scientists said here yesterday that meats can be certified clone-free with DNA-tracking, a fast and cheap technique already used in some countries to certify beef and chicken as organic or hormone-free.

"Think of it as God's barcode," said Professor Patrick Cunningham, a DNA-tracking pioneer and now science adviser to the Irish government.

Originally developed to deal with public fears about meat sources during the European outbreak of Mad Cow disease in the 1990s, the method has since been improved and now costs only pennies per food item.

Cunningham said the method would also reveal meat or milk from the direct progeny of cloned cattle but costs rise sharply for later generations.

"I can't see where it would be justified for their grandchildren or great-grandchildren," he told a news conference here at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Cunningham said DNA-tracking could be introduced quickly and cheaply in Canada because all cattle here already get unique identity numbers that follow them through slaughter and onto store meat counters.

But government would have to pass a law requiring that all cloned animals be registered with an independent agency that kept their genetic fingerprints on file. A quick scan of a cut of meat would quickly reveal if it contained any of those fingerprints. If not, the retailer could label the meat as clone-free.

The consumer right-to-know argument heated up in mid-January when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration proclaimed that meat and milk from cloned animals were safe to eat.

The FDA also ruled that labels don't have to reveal if the food comes from cloned cows, pigs or goats, or the clones' offspring.

No foods derived from cloned animals are currently approved for sale in Canada and Health Canada officials say they're still reviewing the safety evidence.

Cunningham agreed with industry contentions that high costs mean cloned meat won't be on the market for many years. Cloned cattle currently costs six times as much to produce as cattle bred and raised the traditional way.

But he said that the world might much sooner see cloning of genetically engineered animals, which would make more economic sense.

The Irish professor referred specifically to the so-called "enviropigs" at the University of Guelph, which have been genetically engineered to have lower phosphorus levels in their excrement, producing pig waste that is more environmentally friendly.

An expert in bovine genetics, Cunningham developed the DNA-tracking technique along with colleagues at Trinity College in Dublin. It relies on tiny bits of genetic code, called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) which are much cheaper to isolate than entire DNA strands.

Yet the technique still spots differences among cattle with very high precision.

"Between 30 and 40 SNPs will give you a 1 in 10 million discrimination between two individual cattle," he said.

Cunningham is also co-founder of IdentiGEN, a spin-off company that provides DNA-tracking in Europe and the U.S. More than three-quarters of the "organic" beef sold by Ireland's three largest retailers is certified using the technique, he said.

USA: Top Scientists Want Research Free From Politics

Inter Press Service, February 15 2008. By Adrianne Appel.

BOSTON - Leading U.S. scientists called on Congress Thursday to make sure the next president does not do what they say the George W. Bush Administration has done: censor, suppress and falsify important environmental and health research.

"The next president and Congress must cultivate an environment where reliable scientific advice flows freely," said Susan Wood, a former director of women's research at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Wood resigned her post in 2005 in protest over the FDA's delay in getting emergency, over-the-counter birth control onto the market.

"Serious consequences can result when drug safety decisions are not based on the best available scientific advice from staff scientists and experts," she said.

Wood joined a panel of prominent scientists in Boston - convened by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an activist group - to announce a joint statement asking Congress to protect scientific integrity. Among the more than 15,000 government scientists signing onto the statement are Harold Varmus, president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre and former director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH); and Anthony Robbins, professor of medicine at Tufts University and former director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

"Although surely the worst, the Bush Administration is not the first, nor will it be the last administration to mistreat and misuse science and scientists," Robbins said. The White House itself has been directly involved in the suppression and falsification of science, Robbins stressed.

But interference from the White House is just part of the problem, said Francesca Grifo, a former government researcher and now a director at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Industry lobbyists are all over government agencies, trying to influence research that will impact their corporations, she said. "These special interest groups are being given access at the highest level."

"Government scientists have had their findings subjected to censorship and misrepresentation," said Kurt Gottfried, professor of physics at Cornell University and a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "The public and Congress have often been deprived of accurate and candid scientific information."

"The pursuit of science in an open society has had a long and fruitful tradition in America," Gottfried said. "Unfortunately, this tradition has been violated in recent years by the government itself."

The Union of Concerned Scientists has been tracking the Bush Administration's activities within the scientific community. No fewer than 1,191 scientists employed at nine federal agencies have reported to the group that they fear retaliation from their superiors because the results of their research are threatening to corporate or other interests, according to Grifo.

"What we've been seeing is that when certain programs produce research results that are considered inconvenient they are being penalized by having their funding cut," Grifo told IPS. One such program is an annual listing of pollutants released by private companies, called the Toxic Release Inventory.

"We have seen it undermined," Grifo said. The NASA satellite research program Mission to Planet Earth, which documents environmental degradation, also has been the target of severe budget cuts, Grifo said.

"When science is falsified, fabricated or censored Americans' health and safety suffer," Grifo said.

This interference has been directed at climate change research, new birth control drugs, species protection, consumer safety studies and agricultural research, the scientists said.

The suppression of health data by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may cost many people who were at Ground Zero in New York City ó or lived nearby on Sep. 11 ó their health, the scientists said. Following the attacks of Sep. 11, then-EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman went before the public and safety personnel on numerous occasions and said that the dust hovering over Ground Zero and settling over New York was not harmful. Many rescue workers and local residents have since become gravely ill due to the toxicity of the air they breathed.

The fate of the Greater Sage grouse is unknown since a top government official interfered with scientific studies showing that the bird and its habitat needed protection from development, the scientists said. Julie MacDonald stalled the release of studies on the grouse by questioning the methodology and conclusions. An expert panel never saw the studies and so recommended the bird not be protected.

Robin Ingle, a former statistician with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, said the commission refused to warn the public about gross problems with products like all-terrain vehicles even when research made clear how dangerous they were. "A political appointee at my agency prevented my research on all-terrain-vehicle safety from reaching the public, even when deaths and injuries occurred," she said.

"It's very important that scientific and mathematical research on consumer products be free of the push and pull of politics because you don't want it to be biased in favour of the industry," Ingle told IPS.

In another example, a microbiologist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture was prevented 11 times from publicizing his research about the dangers of bacteria in the air near massive pig farms in Iowa and Missouri ó a big business that supplies America's pork. His research found that the bacteria are resistant to antibiotics. But his supervisor refused to allow him to discuss his results, saying in one memo to him: "politically sensitive and controversial issues require discretion."

USA: Government By the Industry, For the Industry

(Excerpts from Chapter 5 of Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey M. Smith) http://www.wanttoknow.info/deception10pg

Henry Miller was in charge of biotechnology issues at the FDA from 1979 to 1994. According to Miller, "U.S. government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do." [16] This chapter reveals how industry influence has dictated policy, and how the FDA ignored the recommendations by the majority of their own scientists by approving GM foods without requiring safety tests.

Excerpts:

The biotech industry's success with these government leaders became apparent on May 26, 1992 in the Indian Treaty Room of the Old Executive Building. There, Vice President Dan Quayle announced the Bush administration's new policy on genetically engineered food: "The reforms we announce today will speed up and simplify the process of bringing better agricultural products, developed through biotech, to consumers, food processors and farmers. We will ensure that biotech products will receive the same oversight as other products, instead of being hampered by unnecessary regulation." [17]

By "receive the same oversight as other products," Quayle meant that GM foods would be considered just as safe as natural, non-GM foods. And sidestepping "unnecessary regulation" meant that the government would not require any safety tests or any special labels identifying the foods as genetically engineered. The rationale for this hands-off policy was spelled out in an FDA document dated three days after Quayle's announcement. "The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way." [18] Monsanto had what it wanted: government endorsement of safety, and no regulations that would interfere with its plans for rapid worldwide sales.

Political Science at the FDA

Attorney Michael Taylor was involved in the development of FDA policy. Prior to working at the FDA, Monsanto was his personal client. Taylor had helped Monsanto draft pro-biotech regulations that the industry would lobby for. While working for the FDA, Taylor could implement those laws himself. For Monsanto, there was no better person to step into a leadership role at the FDA.

Taylor did not simply fill a vacant position at the agency. In 1991 the FDA created a new position for him: Deputy Commissioner for Policy. He instantly became the FDA official with the greatest influence on GM food regulation, overseeing the development of government policy.

According to public interest attorney Steven Druker, who has studied the FDA's internal files, "During Mr. Taylor's tenure as Deputy Commissioner, references to the unintended negative effects of bioengineering were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement (over the protests of agency scientists), and a final statement was issued claiming (a) that [GM] foods are no riskier than others and (b) that the agency has no information to the contrary." [19] In 1994, Taylor became the administrator at the Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service, where he was also involved in biotechnology issues. He later became Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto.

When the FDA announced its policy, the public was not aware of any internal dissent. The policy boldly claimed that there was no information to indicate that GM foods were different or more risky than natural varieties. Since the American public generally trusts the FDA, people assumed that no such risks existed. But nearly a decade later, the agency's internal documentsómade public for the first time through a lawsuitótold a different story.

Linda Kahl, an FDA compliance officer, protested that by "trying to force an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified by genetic engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices," the agency was "trying to fit a square peg into a round hole." She insisted, "the processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks." [20]

One such expert was FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl. "There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering," wrote Pribyl in a letter to James Maryanski, the FDA's biotech coordinator. Pribyl said that several aspects of gene splicing "may be more hazardous." [21] According to the New York Times, "Dr. Pribyl knew from studies that toxins could be unintentionally created when new genes were introduced into a plant's cells." [22] Moreover, Pribyl wrote "there is no certainty that [the breeders of GM foods] will be able to pick up effects that might not be obvious." He declared, "This is the industry's pet idea, namely that there are no unintended effects that will raise the FDA's level of concern. But time and time again, there is no data to back up their contention." [23]

Pribyl was only one of many FDA scientists asked to provide input during the formulation of the FDA's policy on genetically engineered food. According to Druker, records show that the majority of these scientists identified potential risks of GM foods. Druker was the main organizer of the lawsuit that forced the FDA documents into the public domain. His nonprofit organization, the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, was the lead plaintiff. Having sorted through tens of thousands of pages of FDA documents, he described the opinion of the agency's scientists as follows: "The predominant view was that genetic engineering entails distinct risks and that its products cannot be regarded as safe unless they have been confirmed to be so through appropriate feeding studies." Druker says several scientists "issued strong warnings." [24]

The Toxicology Group, for example, warned that genetically modified plants could "contain unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants," and described the reasons why these might be very difficult to identify. [25] Their director wrote, "The possibility of unexpected, accidental changes in genetically engineered plants justifies a limited traditional toxicological study." [26]

The Division of Food Chemistry and Technology outlined four potential dangers:

"Increased levels of known naturally occurring toxins"

"Appearance of new, not previously identified" toxins

Increased tendency to gather "toxic substances from the environment" such as "pesticides or heavy metals"

"Undesirable alterations in the levels of nutrients"

They warned, "unless genetically engineered plants are evaluated specifically for these changes," these four "may escape breeders' attention." The division recommended testing every GM food "before it enters the marketplace." [27]

Gerald Guest, the director of FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) sent a letter to the FDA's Biotech Coordinator, James Maryanski, saying that he and the other CVM scientists concluded that there is "ample scientific justification" to require testing and review of each GM food before it is eaten by the public. He stated, "CVM believes that animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns." He pointed out that, "residues of plant constituents or toxicants in meat and milk products may pose human food safety concerns." [28]

In spite of repeated internal memos outlining the potential for increased health risks posed by this new technology, subsequent drafts of the FDA's policy statement, overseen by Taylor, deleted more and more of the scientist's input. In a fiery memo to Maryanski, Pribyl challenged the direction the policy statement had taken: "What has happened to the scientific elements of this document? Without a sound scientific base to rest on, this becomes a broad, general, ëWhat do I have to do to avoid trouble'-type documentÖ. It will look like and probably be just a political documentÖ. It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects."

But while the FDA's scientists were emphasizing caution and testing, its leaders were beholden to an altogether different lobbying effort. A March 1992 memo from FDA Commissioner David Kessler, confirmed the White House's influence in the crafting of the agency's policy. "The approach and provisions of the policy statement are consistent with the general biotechnology policy established by the Office of the PresidentÖ. It also responds to White House interest in assuring the safe, speedy development of the U.S. biotechnology industry." [29]

But even the draft of the policy that Commissioner Kessler praised as White House-friendly was subject to further revision as it went up the political chain of command. A memo from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, at the Department of Health & Human Services, expressed reservations about the length and depth of the policy statement's concern for environmental effects of GM crops. The letter said, "The extensive twelve page discussion seems to beÖdangerously detailed and drawn-out." [30] In the end, it was the political, rather than scientific considerations that prevailed.

The agency not only ignored its scientists, it claimed their concerns never existed. For example, the State Department's Melinda Kimble, while negotiating GMO trade policy said, "I want to make very clear that it is the position of the United States government that we do not believe there is a difference between GMO commodities and non-GMO commodities." [31] Likewise, a March 2003 statement by Speaker of the House Hastert declared, "There is general consensus among the scientific community that genetically modified food is no different from conventional food." [32]

When the FDA documents eventually became public, Maryanski defended the agency's policy. On February 28, 2000, he told the OECD Conference on GM Food Safety in Edinburgh, Scotland that the FDA scientists had merely been asking questions about the various issues involved in bioengineered food. Maryanski was unpleasantly surprised when Druker, who was a member of the conference, stood up and invited the audience to read the FDA memos that were posted on his organization's website. They could see for themselves that the agency's scientists were not merely asking questions; many of their statements were quite emphatic about the unique risks of GM foods.

Maryanski, other FDA officials, and representatives throughout the U.S. government continue to claim that there is overwhelming consensus among scientists that GM foods are safe. In an October 1991 letter to a Canadian official, however, Maryanski himself had admitted that this was not true. He said, "there are a number of specific issuesÖ for which a scientific consensus does not exist currently, especially the need for specific toxicology tests." Maryanski also said, "I think the question of the potential for some substances to cause allergenic reactions is particularly difficult to predict." [33]

Commenting on statements made by FDA scientists, the New York Times wrote. "The scientists were displaying precisely the concerns that Monsanto executives from the 1980's had anticipated -- and indeed had considered reasonable. But now, rather than trying to address those concerns, Monsanto, the industry and official Washington were dismissing them as the insignificant worries of the uninformed." [34]

Many scientists who understood the dangers, however, were not convinced by the FDA's assurances. Geneticist David Suzuki, for example, said, "Any politician or scientist who tells you these products are safe is either very stupid or lying. The experiments have simply not been done." [35] A January 2001 report from an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada likewise supported the conclusions of the FDA scientists. The report said it was "scientifically unjustifiable" to presume that GM foods are safe. The report explains that the "default prediction" for any GM foods is that "expression of a new gene (and its products) Ö will be accompanied by a range of collateral changes in expression of other genes, changes in the pattern of proteins produced and/or changes in metabolic activities." This could result in novel toxins or other harmful substances. The report emphasized the need for safety testing, looking for short and long-term human toxicity, allergenicity, and other health effects. The panel began their comprehensive 245-page report by quoting the editors of the UK's Nature Biotechnology. "The risks in biotechnology are undeniable, and they stem from the unknowable in science and commerce. It is prudent to recognize and address those risks, not compound them by overly optimistic or foolhardy behavior." [36]

FDA veterinarian Richard Burroughs described the changes he saw at the FDA. "There seemed to be a trend in the place toward approval at any price. It went from a university-like setting where there was independent scientific review to an atmosphere of "approve, approve, approve." He said, "the thinking is, 'How many things can we approve this year?' Somewhere along the way they abdicated their responsibility to the public welfare." [37] A congressional aide said, "At FDA morale stinks. Hundreds of people have either retired or quit in disgust. All the best people, who believed in working on behalf of public health, have gone." Dan Glickman, former Secretary of Agriculture, describes the government's pro-biotech mind-set. "It was almost immoral to say that it wasn't good because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked." He said, "You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded viewÖ. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoricÖ It was written into my speeches." [38]

South Australia extends moratorium on GM crops

Green Left, 15 February 2008. By Annolies Truman.

On February 8, the South Australian government voted to extend its moratorium on commercial GM crops, despite Victoria and New South Wales recently legislating to allow commercial GM plantings. Western Australia and Tasmania still have bans in place.

SA Premier Mike Rann said his cabinet was concerned about the probable effect on the state's food exports if GM crops were allowed.

Say No to GMO activist Janet Grogan told Green Left Weekly that the decision was a victory for the anti-GMO campaign. "This is good news from the Rann government. We applaud them for making this decision based on economic and scientific assessments and the common good, rather than pressure from the powerful biotech lobby. It sets a positive precedent for other states and gives encouragement to the campaigns."

The SA Farmers Federation criticised the decision, its president Wayne Cornish saying farmers will miss out on lucrative opportunities.

But SA agriculture minister Rory McEwen argued that the state will have a marketing edge, especially with GM-free grapes and wine, by continuing its GM ban.

Grogan said the next step in the campaign is strict liability legislation. "This is urgently needed to protect SA and other states from the inevitable contamination problems that will come from NSW and Victoria when they go ahead with lifting their bans at the end of this month", she warned.

Scientific and legal inconsistencies blight GM potato

Greenpeace press release, 15 Feb 2008

Brussels, Belgium - The EU should recognise scientific evidence, follow its own legal requirements and protect European consumers by not authorising the use of a potentially harmful GM potato developed by German chemical company BASF, said Greenpeace ahead of a crucial EU Agriculture Council vote on Monday.

The potato contains an antibiotic resistance marker gene (ARMG) (1) known as nptII, which conveys resistance to antibiotics and which should already have been phased out under EU law since 2004 (2). Despite this and despite a number of legal concerns, the European Food Safety Authority gave a positive opinion on the BASF potato, paving the way for Monday's vote.

"This potato is blighted by too many inconsistencies for the Council to legally approve it. The EFSA opinion upon which the Commission proposal is based contradicts the scientific opinions of other international institutions and also EFSA's own previous opinions on the same issue. Therefore, the Commission proposal is unlawful," said Marco Contiero, Greenpeace EU GMO policy director.

Both the WHO and the European Medicine's Agency (EMEA) contradicted EFSA's decision and found that the families of antibiotics affected by the potato gene (kanamycin and neomycin) are "critically important" (3) for veterinary and human use and "cannot be classified as of no or only minor therapeutic relevance". (4) EFSA subsequently recognised that the BASF potato ARMG confers resistance to antibiotics of critical importance but failed to modify its position. Crucially, an EFSA opinion of 2004 declared that products containing ARMGs affecting "highly relevant" antibiotics should not be placed on the market. (5)

An attached legal opinion commissioned by Greenpeace and carried out by leading UK barrister Paul Lasok QC (6) highlights the legal inconsistencies concerning the classification and the possible authorisation of the BASF potato. "It is very difficult to see how a GMO could be authorised in 2008 if it contained an ARMG that should have been phased out by 31 December 2004," says Paul Lasok QC.

Greenpeace calls on the Council to take into consideration the scientific opinions of the WHO and EMEA and recognise the legal problems that render the authorisation of the BASF GM potato impossible. "The information the Commission based its proposal to the Council on is seriously flawed and this highlights the huge cracks in the EU's authorisation system. The truth is that the BASF potato did not undergo a full risk assessment as required by EU law. EFSA did not investigate the effects of the potato on biodiversity, and information on health and ecological impact is missing," said Marco Contiero.

BASF could have easily extracted the ARMG before going into production, but chose not to in order to save money and time. "The use of this outdated gene technology is irresponsible. No-one in their right mind would run the risk of increasing antibiotic resistance in humans and animals and jeopardise the treatments to a variety of illnesses," said Marco Contiero.

Notes to Editor

•

A Greenpeace media briefing with a chronology of decisions on the BASF GM potato is available for download at: http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/policy-papers-briefings/briefing-basf-gm-potato.

•

A legal briefing by leading UK barrister Paul Lasok QC on the legal inconsistencies concerning the case for the authorisation of the BASF GM potato is available for download at: http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/policy-papers-briefings/legal-briefing-on-basf-gm-potato.

(1) Antibiotic-resistant genes are a superseded biotech technology designed to show which plants have been successfully modified.

(2) Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, Article 4(2) (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:106:0001:0038:EN:PDF).

(3) World Health Organisation, Critically Important Antibacterial Agents for Human Medicine for Risk Management Strategies of Non-Human Use. Report of a WHO working group consultation, 15-18 February 2005, Canberra, Australia (http://www.who.int/foodborne_disease/resistance/amr_feb2005.pdf).

(4) EMEA - Committee for medicinal products for veterinary use and Committee for medicinal products for human use, Presence of the antibiotic resistance marker gene nptII in GM plants for food and feed uses. EMEA/CVMP/56937/2007. 22 February 2007 (http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/opiniongen/5693707en.pdf).

(5) Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on the use of antibiotic resistance genes as marker genes in genetically modified plants. Opinion adopted on 2 April 2004 (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Opinion/opinion_gmo_05_en1,2.pdf).

(6) Barrister of the year for The Lawyer Awards 2006.

Contact information

Marco Contiero ‚ Greenpeace EU GMO policy director,
marco.contiero@greenpeace.org, tel. +32 2 274 1906, +32 (0)477 77 70 34 (mob.)

Mark Breddy ‚ Greenpeace EU communications manager,
mark.breddy@greenpeace.org, tel. +32 2 274 1903, +32 (0)496 15 62 29 (mob.)

14 February 2008

Syngentan Is Fighting An Ideological Battle For Hearts, Minds And Mouths

The Times, 14 February 2008. By Carl Mortished.

Mike Mack runs Syngenta, one of Europe's leading businesses, but in one respect he has almost given up hope on the Continent. Europe has turned its back on a technology that some believe will be essential for feeding the world in the 21st century.

He runs a Swiss company that is a hybrid of long-established European businesses of top vintage. Behind Syngenta are Novartis and Astra-Zeneca, the pharmaceutical giants. Their parents were equally distinguished: respectively Ciba and Sandoz, of Switzerland, and ICI, once Britain's leading industrial company.

ICI has disappeared, absorbed by Akzo Nobel. The British chemical giant was in decline for a long time, but it did have a seeds business. That was shed with the demerger of Zeneca in 1994 ‚ and in 1996 Zeneca brought the first genetically modified tomato to the market place: a tomato puree called Flavr Savr.

It was clearly identified as GM and it was an instant consumer success, but it did not last long, suffering an intense and relentless assault, including lawsuits, from opponents of the technology.

Mr Mack says that GM seeds are only 5 per cent of sales, while European crop protection - herbicides and fungicides ‚ is a huge business, serving an enormous agricultural market. However, it is the GM seeds that will grow fast. They account for half of an $800 million (GBP407 million) research budget. Within five years, he expects GM technology to represent 10 to 11 per cent of the company's revenues. Mr Mack is an American, but the future, as he sees it, is in Asia and in the Americas. The genetic technology has left Europe to be developed on more fertile soil, he argues.

He said: "We don't conduct any GM research in Europe. We took all our GM research to the US years ago. Our financial ambitions are not underpinned by the EU because we cannot see that happening anytime soon. We are looking to the US, to Canada, to Latin America, primarily Brazil and Argentina and we are looking to Asia, primarily China."

More research money is going into China and seed development stations are popping up in Brazil. Still, the EU refuses to approve Syngenta's seeds, despite repeated clearances from the European Food Safety Authority.

It is an ideological battle about who should carry the burden of proof: must opponents show that GM is dangerous or must Syngenta prove it is safe?

For Mr Mack, the proof is obvious, because livestock eat imported GM maize and soya: "Every European gets a dose of GM every day."

The Syngenta chief was born in Detroit. His father sewed upholstery on a Ford Motor assembly line and he jokes that until he arrived at Syngenta, he believed that corn grew out of a can. His job now is to convince people that it can grow in a test tube and he thinks that Europeans will wake up to the cost of ignoring technology.

He said: "When I go to Brazil or the United States, how is it that food is so much more affordable? When people look at the meat counter, they are going to marvel at the price of meat. They are going to have less of it and they are not going to know the truth. My hypothesis is that we lack the political will to tell the truth."

Comment by GM Watch:

Mike Mack runs Syngenta. In the Times' piece below, Mack admits Syngenta's retreat in the face of intransigent European opposition to GMOs - "We don't conduct any GM research in Europe. We took all our GM research to the US years ago."

Europe's no longer even part of Syngenta's game plan, according to Mack: "Our financial ambitions are not underpinned by the EU because we cannot see that happening anytime soon."

But Mack makes an interesting claim - that the proof of the safety of GM foods is there for all to see in Europe, because European livestock, he says, eat imported GM maize and soya - hence, "Every European gets a dose of GM every day."

This is a startling admission because up till now the industry has always claimed, as part of its argument that meat, milk and eggs from animals fed on GM crops do not need to be labelled, that consumers are not exposed to GM material by eating food from GM-fed animals. And they could just about get away with such a claim up until 2005 as studies which tried to detect GM DNA in milk, eggs and tissues from GM-fed animals had only detected non-GM DNA from the crops. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8490

But more recent scientific evidence shows GM DNA does end up in milk and animal tissues of GM-fed animals, contrary to the assurances from the industry and the likes of the UK's Food Standards Agency. Worse still, at least 13 animal feeding trials now show a range of alarming health effects in animals fed GM: lesions in the gut, toxic effects in body organs, unexplained deaths and stunted growth in their offspring. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8490

The European Comission and EU member governments have always said they support consumer choice over GMOs, while surveys consistently show consumers want labels where GM crops have been used in animal feed. With the biotech industry now boasting, "Every European gets a dose of GM every day", it's time to label.

For more information about GM animal feed:

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8490

World Remains Highly Dependent on Conventionally-Bred Crops
Industry Claims Grossly Exaggerate GM Importance

GM Freeze, 14 February 2008

GM Freeze has described the latest biotech industry-funded assessment [1] of the importance of GM crops around the world as a "gross exaggeration".

Industry data puts the area under GM crops at 114 million hectares in 2007, which represent just 2.2% of global farm and commercial forestry land. GM Freeze point out that this means that nearly 98% of crops grown are non-GM. In addition, the vast majority of crops, such as wheat, barley, rice, potatoes, fruit and vegetables, are conventionally bred non-GM varieties.

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) 2007 data included GM poplar trees in China for the first time. These have been planted for many years, and their inclusion goes some way to explaining the increased area of GM planting since 2006 claimed by ISAAA.

A more accurate assessment of the relative proportions of areas grown, if it includes trees, would have to include all commercial forestry land, not just agricultural land, bringing the area grown down to a mere 2.2% globally.

In the European Union, where the market for GM crops is very small, over 99.75% of agricultural land is growing non-GM crops.[2]

ISAAA predicts that the area under GM will reach 200 million hectares in 2015. This means that even by the biotech industry's own best estimate, well over 95% of crops will still be produced from seeds bred without GM technology well into the future.

The majority of GM crops are herbicide tolerant and insect resistant. Both are beginning to run into agronomic problems because of:

•

Weed resistance to Monsanto's RoundUp weedkiller [4]

•

Resistance in insect pest to GM Bt crops [5]

•

Secondary pests in Bt crops [6]

Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said: "Industry projections for 2015 are hardly impressive. After 20 years of commercial growing, and 40 years of research and development, GM crops will still be very much a minority technology in agriculture. Their claims are a gross exaggeration. Promises of GM drought-tolerant crops made over a decade ago have not been delivered because these crops will require more complex genetic engineering, which is more difficult to control and predict. Government departments, like our own DFID, would do well to reassess their research priorities and recognise that research, development and training in conventional plant breeding has to be given greater importance in the Global South.

"GM Freeze dismisses the ISAAA claims that subsistence farmers are benefiting from GM crops. Most GM crops grow in prairie-type monocultures in the USA, Brazil, Argentina, and Canada. The biotech industry concentrates on developing cash crops for export and not food crops to feed hungry people."

Calls to Pete Riley 0845 217 8992 /07903 341065 or Eve Mitchell 07962 437128

Notes

1. Report in The Financial Times, Limited, 13 February 2008 on the the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) annual review. Available at
www.checkbiotech.org/green_News_Genetics.aspx?Name=genetics&infoId=16937

2. For global agricultural land areas see
www.nationmaster.com/graph/agr_agr_lan_sq_km-agricultureagricultural-land-sq-km. ISAAA claim 114m hectares of GM crops in 2007 out of a total farm land area of 4,803,385,400 ha. In the EU in 2007 around 450,000 hectare of GM crops were grown out of a total of 192,266,000 ha of agricultural land.

3. An estimated 17-25,000 hectares of the RoundUp resistant weed Johnson Grass have been reported in Argentina www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news
&doc_id=13403&start=1&control=169&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1

4. Insect pests resistant to Bt pesticides genetically engineered into BT cotton have been found in field surveys. Gunning RV, Dang HT, Kemp FC, Nicholson IC & Moores GD (2005) New resistance mechanism in Helicoverpa armigera threatens transgenic crops expressing Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac toxin. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 71:2558-2563.

5. Secondary pests, such as aphids, are becoming a pest on Bt cotton in India see www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.00600

GM crops remain stalled

Gene Ethics, February 14 2008

The annual industry review of commercial Genetically Manipulated (GM) crops for 2007 (see: http://www.isaaa.org) again shows they stalled long ago.

"GM technology and its products are a dud," says Gene Ethics Director, Bob Phelps.

"For yet another year, the ISAAA inflates growth in the GM industry, boosts adoption figures and ignores the negative health, environmental and economic impacts of GM crops.

"In 1996 GM soy, corn, canola and cotton were launched, with two new traits - tolerance to lethal weed killers or built-in Bt insect toxins but in 2008, just the same four crops and two traits are commercially available.

"Seven countries grew 97.5% of GM crops in 2007, the same as 2006.

"And five of those countries are in North and South America, where most GM crops are used for animal feed or biofuel production.

"No-one, anywhere, wants to eat GM foods and if they were fully labelled as they should be, GM food crops would not be grown.

"The number of countries that grew more than 50,000 hectares (500 square km) of GM crops fell from 14 in 2006 to 13 in 2007.

"A few other countries are dabbling in GM crops but drop them when environmental, animal and human health impacts appear.

"For instance, last year Iran cancelled its entire GM crop program.

"And Australia's cotton crop shrank from 220,000 hectares in 2005, to 134,000 in 2006, and about 60,000 hectares last year.

"GM is responsible for cotton's collapse as it follows the lifting of the 30% cap on GM cotton in 2005, when GM's share shot up to over 90%.

"Australian GM cotton is an ecological and economic failure.

"The global acreage of herbicide tolerant GM canola also stalled in 1999. The two GM producers - Canada and the USA - still grow less than 20% of the crop.

"In contrast, eighteen countries are GM-free and as Australia is the world's main GM-free canola exporter we sell it anywhere, at a premium up to $120.

"If the Victorian and NSW governments end their bans on herbicide tolerant GM canola, we'll be overrun by a plant version of the cane-toad. GM canola will exchange pollen with wild radish, turnip and charlock, making super weeds that can never be recalled.

"Ideology, not facts, are blinding our governments and scientists.

"The ISAAA is flogging a dead horse and our governments should continue to ban GM crops," Mr Phelps concludes.

More comment: Bob Phelps 03 9347 4500 or 03 9889 1717 (H)

Expert report shows that GE won't feed the world

Greenpeace Australia. By Louise Sales.

Biotechnology companies developing genetically engineered (GE) crops have withdrawn from a major international project to map out the future of agriculture, after it failed to back GE as a tool to reduce poverty and hunger. The project involves 4,000 scientists and experts from around the world, and one of its draft reports raises serious concerns about the environmental, human health and economic impacts of GE crops.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology is an ambitious, 4-year, US$10-million project that aims to do for hunger and poverty what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has done for the challenge of global warming. Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF resigned from the project after a draft report highlighted the risks of GE crops and said they could pose problems for the developing world.

The report states that there is no evidence that GE crops increase yields and warns that use of the technology in the developing world could concentrate "ownership of agricultural resources" in the hands of the companies involved, as well as causing problems with patents.

Greenpeace, a member of the assessment project, urged the companies to reconsider. Jan van Aken, GE campaigner with Greenpeace International, said: "This assessment goes far beyond genetic engineering, it is about setting solutions for global agriculture and the world's poor and hungry. It is such a shame to withdraw from such a good initiative, simply because your business plans do not fit with sound science and experts voiced a more balanced opinion than yours."

According to the scientific journal Nature the idea that biotechnology cannot by itself reduce hunger and poverty is now mainstream opinion among agricultural scientists and policy-makers. For example, biotechnology expansion was not among the seven main recommendations in Halving Hunger: It Can Be Done, a report commissioned by former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan. The writing team for this report included Kenya's Florence Wambugu, perhaps the strongest proponent for biotechnology in Africa.

However, whilst experts all round the world have rejected GE as a solution to world hunger, the biotechnology industry continues to push them as a panacea for the world's poor. For example, the recent International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications'(ISAAA) report claims that half the world's population benefits from GE crops (1). This figure is arrived at by adding together the entire population figures of China, India and all other countries where GE crops are grown, despite the fact that these crops are only grown on a very small scale in the vast majority of those countries. In China, for example, GE represents only 2.9% of Chinese agriculture area, in Europe it is only 0.119% of the agricultural area.

The reality is that of the 1.5 billion hectares of arable land on the planet, more than 92% is cultivated without genetically engineered (GE) plants and over 99% of farmers worldwide farm without resorting to GE crops. In fact, rice and wheat, two of the world's most important staple crops, are still grown GE free. Despite having been commercialised for twelve years, 80% of all GE crops are still grown in just three countries - the US, Argentina and Brazil. And increasingly more countries are opting for an outright ban on GE crops, as can be seen by France's recent announcement to ban the commercial planting of GE maize.

Sources:

David Adam, D. (2008) Biotech companies desert international agriculture project , The Guardian, 22/1/08,

Editorial (2008) Deserting the hungry? Nature, 17/1/08451:223-224.

ISAAA (2008) ISAAA Brief 37-2007: Executive Summary, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2006

(1) The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications' (ISAAA) is a pro-biotech lobby group that works to push genetic engineering into the developing world. It receives significant amounts of funding from the biotechnology industry, including from such GE giants as Monsanto and Du Pont. Every year it publishes a report on the state of GE world-wide which is scientifically flawed and its statistics distorted.

[Louise Sales is Community Organiser - Genetic Engineering for Greenpeace Australia Pacific]

Attack of the superweeds
While global GMO acreage surges, herbicide-resistent weeds thrive

Gristmill, 14 Feb 2008. By Tom Philpott.

Global acreage of genetically modified crops jumped 12 percent in 2007 -- "the second highest increase in global biotech crop area in the last five years," gushes a report from the pro-GMO International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).

Farmers planted an additional 30 million acres of GM crops in 2007, an area nearly equal to the land mass of Iowa (a huge swath of which itself is planted in GM crops). Overall, GM crops cover 282.4 million acres, ISAAA claims -- up from zero as recently as 1994.

ISAAA hails the GM explosion as a boon to humanity, ignoring serious evidence that genetically altered food presents health risks. The group also doesn't mention that the GM acreage is essentially limited to four massive crops: corn, soy, cotton, and canola. That means that a sizabale swath of the globe's arable land is planted from a startlingly narrow genetic base. Nor does it mention that a single company, Monsanto, dominates this huge and growing market. (It holds the patents on 91 percent of global GM soy, 97 percent of corn, 63 percent of cotton, and 59 percent of canola).

Finally, the report ignores the cascade of Roundup (glyphosate), Monsanto's flagship herbicide, that has accompanied the rise of GM. As the Center for Food Safety writes in a report released this week (PDF), the great bulk of GM crops -- covering four out of five GM acres planted -- are engineered to withstand lashings of Roundup.
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/FoE%20I%20Who%20Benefits
%202008%20-%20Full%20Report%20FINAL%202-6-08.pdf

In the U.S. alone, glyphosate use jumped by a factor of 15 between 1994 and 2005, CFS claims. And this herbicide gusher has given rise to a host of "superweeds" -- weeds that tolerate heavy doses glyphosate. How do farmers deal with superweeds? By jacking up the dose of glyphosate.

The trend of increased rate of glyphosate use is clear. For soybeans, per-acre applications of Monsanto's herbicide jumped by a factor of 2.5 between 1994 and 2006. Corn farmers didn't really embrace GMOs until 2002; accordingly, between 2002 and 2005, glyphosate use on corn "jumped from 0.71 to 0.96 lbs./acre/year, a hefty 35% increase in just three years."

Farmers of Roundup Ready crops appear to have entered a pesticide treadmill. They have to raise application rates to keep up with resistance; and every time they do, they create hardier and hardier weeds. Monsanto, which expects to rake in $1.4 billion in profit from Roundup sales alone this year, is evidently laughing its way to the bank.

Moreover, the cascade of Roundup has not even slowed down use of other, more toxic herbicides. Between 2002 and 2005, CFS reports, even as corn farmers were jacking up Roundup use, they also increased use of atrazine 12 percent (atrazine is applied to clear fields of weeds before planting, so it doesn't affect the crops.) A similar trend holds for soy.

The CFS report contains other interesting analysis as well. For all the hype around GMOs, the group points out, "they continue to be the province of a handful of nations with highly-industrialized, export-oriented agricultural sectors." The report continues:

"Over 90 percent of the area planted to GM crops is found in just 5 countries located in North & South America: the US, Canada, Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay. One country alone, the United States, produces over 50 percent of the world's GM crops; the U.S. and Argentina together grow over 70% of all GM crops."

Moreover, for all the hype about who GMOs are going to "feed the world" and "save Africa from starvation," and for all the billions Monsanto has raked in, the industry has only succeeded in rolling out two traits: herbicide tolerance and insect resistance.

"Despite more than a decade of hype and failed promises, the biotechnology industry has not introduced a single GM crop with increased yield, enhanced nutrition, drought-tolerance or salt-tolerance. Disease-tolerant GM crops are practically non-existent. In fact, biotech companies have made a commercial success of GM crops with just two traits -- herbicide tolerance and insect resistance -- which offer no advantages to consumers or the environment."

Some will argue with that last point, no doubt. GM apologists will say that the industry's insect-resistance trait has lowered the use of pesticides. CFS concedes this point, reporting that Bt corn and cotton have reduced pesticide use by 16 million pounds in the U.S. since the technology rolled out. That reduction, however, "has been swamped by a much larger increase in herbicide use on herbicide-tolerant crops (+138 million lbs.)."

Moreover, we have no idea what it means to cover millions of acres in plants that contain their own insecticides.

Ireland: Creed demands "open and frank" debate on issue of GM crops

The Corkman, 14 February 2008.

Former Green Party election candidate Caroline Robinson, however, described some of Creed's theories on GM foods as "rubbish", signalling that such an issue could yet have the potential to divide a tenuous coalition government alliance.

Mr Creed called for an end of "scaremongering and lies on the GM issue" and said he was seeking "civilised discussion" on the matter. "Whether we like it or not we have to face up to the reality of GM foods sooner rather than later. We are living in a time where populations are swellings and global climate changes are having an adverse affect on crop yields. Drought is prevalent and with the advent of bio-fuels, prices of various crops are becoming unsustainable," Deputy Creed told the local FG AGM this week.

The Macroom-based deputy said last year agriculture in this country was hit with a "€160m bill due to the EU Commission dragging its heels in permitting the usage of GM products in the production of animal feeds. But all the while the EU was importing animals from other regions that are being fed on the very same products that the EU was banning here," he said.

Mr Creed also said the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, The European Food Safety Authority and the Federal Drugs Authority in the US hold that the use of GM products is not harmful.

The GM food issue is also part of a moral debate, he said. "If there are people starving in famine stricken countries who can be fed by GM crops that can be grown in an otherwise inhospitable climate then these people should not be denied the right to life," he said.

But Ms Robinson disagreed and called his arguments about GM crops growing in otherwise inhospitable climates "rubbish".

She said that a recent experiment of growing GM cotton in India worked well for three years but when the drought came, "they failed miserably".

She also said the cost of animal feed was going up for several reasons , one of which was the expansion in the growth of bio-fuels which was forcing grain crops into tighter areas and so pushing up the price.

The other factor contributing to a rise in the price of GM foods was the increase in the price of oil, she said. "When oil goes up the price of fertiliser goes up because the manufacture of fertiliser entails a high-energy cost which makes the price dearer all round," Ms Robinson said. Famines and starvation are happenings that occur for several reasons and have as much to do with politics as other factors, she added.

She said that Irish people recognise there is a definite niche market for GM free foods in Europe. "If Ireland is a GM free food zone, they can ask a higher price for their crop," she said.

Ireland: Creed calls for GM debate

Irish Farmers Journal, 16 February (published 14 Febuary) 2008.

Fine Gael want a "civilised and frank" debate on GM, claiming that Ireland, as a country, has to face up to the reality of GM foods.

They claim that the Government's "GM free stance" is unsustainable. And in a pointed criticism of the Green Party's influence on Government policy in this area, FG Agriculture spokesman, Deputy Michael Creed said this week: "It is ironic how those who accept the science behind global warming as gospel are often the first to deny the growing scientific support for genetically modified foods."

Creed said he wanted an end to the "lies and scrare mongering" in the GM debate.

"Whether we like it or not, we have to face up to the reality of GM foods sooner or later. We are living in a time when populations are swelling and global climate changes are having an adverse affect on different crop yields," Creed said.

"Last year, Irish agriculture took a €160m hit due to the EU Commission dragging its heels in permitting the use of certain GM products in the production of animal feeds. All the while, the EU are importing animals from other regions that are being fed on the very same products that the EU are banning," he added.

He accused the Government of pursuing a non GM agenda despite the fact that the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, the European Food Safety Authority and the US Federal Drugs Authority have stated that GM products were in no way harmful.

Comment by GM-free Ireland

Mr Creed's statement is not worth the paper it is printed on. He begins by demolishing the credibility of his own call for a "civilised and frank" debate on GMOs by denying the growing scientific evidence of GM food and farming risks, and then accusing those who wish to keep GM crops out of Ireland of "lies and scaremongering"!

His claim that "Irish agriculture took a €160m hit due to the EU Commission dragging its heels in permitting the use of certain GM products in the production of animal feeds" is utter fiction. One must assume he is referring to the illegal Herculex GM maize scandal, which was made public when GM-free Ireland and Greenpeace discovered thousands of tonnes of this unapproved GM variety entering the EU from the USA through Ireland in April 2007, and then being fraudulently sold to Irish farmers. EU Member States twice refused to retroactively legalise it afterwards, until the European Commission finally rubberstamped its aproval via its undemocratic "comitology procedure".

The agri-biotech industry itself (along with its friends in Teagasc, the IFA and the Irish Grain and Feed Association) whinged that this "delay" had "cost the sector an estimated €40 - €60 million" – which is €100 million to €120 million less than what Creed claims.

The reality is that in April 2007, just a few months before the EC approval, Herculex was not authorised in any of the four countries from which the EU imports most of its maize (Argentina, Brazil, Serbia and the Ukraine). The EU's "delay" in approving the importation of Herculex therefore had no impact whatsover on maize imports from its major suppliers. Moreover, it is estimated that Europe itself produced a surplus of GM-free maize in 2007!

Creed's suggestion that we "have to face up to the reality of GM foods" "whether we like it or not" comes directly from the biotech industry's current Public Perception Management strategy, which hopes to convince people that there is nothing you can do to stop the GM invasion. The successful opposition to GM food and farming by the vast majority of EU governments, food brands, food retailers and consumers has resulted in the fact that only one variety of GM crop is now allowed for cultivation in the EU, and this is only grown in two provinces of Spain, where it has already contaminated the fields and seeds supplies of conventional and organic farmers.

His naïve belief that GM crops are required to feed the world is akin to belief in Leprechauns. No GM crop currently in commercial release is designed for higher yields or resistance to drought or other climate changes. Reports published only yesterday prove that commercial cultivation of GM crops has in fact reduced yields, and led to GM superweeds and GM-resistant pests.

Fine Gael's assertion that the regulatory bodies "have stated that GM products were in no way harmul" is extremely misleading:

•

In WTO documents made public under the Freedom of Information act, the EC admits there are "large areas of uncertainty about the health risks posed by GM produce," and that "some issues have not yet been studied at all."

•

The EC also admits "there simply is no way of ascertaining whether the introduction of GM products has had any other effect on human health," and "no unique, absolute, scientific cut off threshold is available to decide whether a GM product is safe or not."

•

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland is run by a former director of a biotech industry lobby group that lost its right to participate in World Health Organisation meetings in 2006 after its corporate funding sources were exposed. FSAI has totally failed to conduct its own scientific risk assessments on GM feed and food. Instead, it routinely accepts as valid those risk assessments provided to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) by the applicant companies.

FSAI admitted this at a hearing of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Environment and Local Government on 24 November 2004, when FSAI Chief Biotechnology Specialist Dr. Pat O'Mahony said "We are a law enforcement agency so we do not carry out research", and FSAI Director of Food Science and Standards and Deputy CEO, Alan Reilly, admitted "We rely on scientific opinion from the European Food Safety Authority."

For full transcript, see Irish Parliamentary Debate, Vol. No. 38, Scrutiny of EU Proposals, Wednesday, 24 November 2004 http://www.gmfreeireland.org/downloads/GMO-24november2004.pdf.

See also "First live GMO animal feed legalised in the EU", GM-free Ireland press release, 2 September 2005:
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI21.pdf.

•

EFSA's risk assessments are scientifically dodgy because they are assumption-based, do not follow standard protocols, allow results of feeding studies based on a single ingredient rather than the entire GMO, discard troubling evidence, and are based on the applicant companies' conclusions while refusing to make public the original data. EU Commissioner Stavros Dimas said "the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) cannot deliver a sound scientific opinion on GMOs; they only examine short term effects and they do not take into account the opinions of member states; there is [also] the question of whether scientific opinions relied solely on information supplied by companies which produce GMOs."

•

And contrary to what Fine Gael claims, there is no such thing as the "US Federal Drugs Authority". US food and farming policies on GMOs fall under the remit of the US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), both of which have NEVER conducted any risk assessment of GM animal feed or GM food. The USFDA has, however, classified all the GM Bt maize crops, as "pesticide" because every cell of these crops, which are widely sold to Irish farmers, is modified to produce a pesticide.

Fine Gael has swallowed the agri-biotech propaganda hook, line, and sinker!

Ireland: WTO warning from EU official

Irish Farmers Journal, 16 February (published 14 Febuary) 2008.

The longer it takes to secure a WTO agreement, the greater the risk that European agriculture will be asked to undertake further reform. That is the view of David O'Sullivan, Head of DG Trade at the European Commission. The Irishman, who is EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson's head official, was speaking at a seminar on China - EU trade links at the Institute of European Affairs in Dublin last Friday.

He said that Ireland would benefit from a WTO agreement through a "consolidation of the reform painfully undertaken since 2003". He said that European agricultural policy is "always vulnerable to a WTO attack". "If this round (of negotiations) goes on much longer, people will ask us to put 2013 reforms in the shop window".

He said that the biggest gain would be in the services sector, where "there would be huge opportunities for Ireland".

The former head of the EU Commission also sounded a warning in relation to Europe's attitude to new technology, such as stem cells and genetically modified food. "If we are not careful in Europe we will have an environment in that people are not comfortable investing in," he said.

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

David O'Sullivan is not a "former head of the EU Commission". If the companies engaged in GM food and farming pull out of Ireland, it would be very good riddance!

India: Supreme Court should encourage active citizenship in Science & Technology matters

Centre for Sustainable Agriculture press release, 14 February 2008.

Hyderabad -- Reacting to the pronouncements of a SC Bench hearing the Public Interest Litigation filed by Aruna Rodrigues and others in the matter of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), Centre for Sustainable Agriculture [CSA] opined that the SC should encourage active citizenship in matters of Science & Technology. "Science & democracy is a full blown subject in itself and for the judicial system to take a view that S & T matters should be left to 'experts' alone is going to affect citizens' engagement with S & T issues that pertain to their everyday life. Such a view could be very detrimental, especially in today's world of corporate science where the political economy of S & T pushed by large corporations with their profits in mind is apparent to everyone. Even if one goes by what the SC has to say, it is not out of place to remind everyone that a majority of nations across the world have already disallowed entry of GMOs in their farming based on experts' views amongst other things!", pointed out Dr G V Ramanjaneyulu, Executive Director, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed Genetic Engineering Approval Committee [GEAC] to scrutinize applications and permit field trials of GE crops subject to a few conditions like the inclusion of eminent scientists like Dr Pushpa Bhargava and Dr M S Swaminathan on the panel while considering such applications and to put out guidelines and rules under which such approvals are being given.

"While it might be true that the Courts are not equipped to go into such technical matters and are not best placed to adjudicate on such matters, the situation is such that the petitioners knocked on the SC's doors when the concerned authorities failed to respond to repeated reports and evidence on lack of scientificity, irregularities and violations. Never once did the authorities take any action to fix liability so far, while conflicting interests are apparent in the authorities", added Ms Kavitha Kuruganti, CSA.

CSA hoped that Dr Swaminathan and Dr Pushpa Bhargava will get an opportunity to exercise their larger views and expertise in the matter as invitees to GEAC. "For instance, Dr Swaminathan, in his Task Force report, has already articulated concerns on herbicide-tolerant crops affecting the employment potential of millions of farming men and women in the country. He had also expressed concern about primary and secondary centres of genetic diversity of particular crops in India being contaminated by GM crops and that guidelines should be evolved to protect them. Similar are his concerns on trade security expressed earlier. Dr Bhargava's views on regulators needing social perspectives in addition to technical expertise are well known. If experts like them are allowed to step in only for little improvements in the current reductionist framework of case by case approvals that GEAC considers based on recommendations by RCGM, it will be gross injustice to the expertise of these eminent persons", they pointed out.

For more information, contact:

1. Ms Kavitha Kuruganti, CSA at (0) 9393001550 or kavitha.kuruganti@gmail.com

2. Dr G V Ramanjaneyulu, CSA at (0) 9391359702 or gvramanjaneyulu@gmail.com

India: Judge smells 'pressure' PILs

The Telegraph, Feb 13 2008

New Delhi, Feb. 13: Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan today lost his cool over "interested" and "pressure" groups using the Supreme Court to settle scores.

"Courts are being used by pressure groups through PILs," Balakrishnan said. "These petitions are being instigated by economic groups to settle rivalries."

He cited the Rs 4,500-crore insecticide industry that had been hit by the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The court was hearing a PIL challenging the permission for open-field trials of GMOs.

The CJI's comment prompted the petitioners' counsel, Prashant Bhushan, to stomp off. He asked the judges to pass an "ex-parte" order without hearing his arguments.

The court clarified that it was generally expressing concern over a recent trend and had not spoken about the GMO case in particular.

Bhushan resumed his arguments challenging the decision of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee to give the green signal to several GMO field trials.

Balancing the two "conflicting" interests - of paying attention to bio-safety and encouraging research - the court directed the government to clear applications for approval of field trials in a "transparent" manner.

India: 'Rope in scientists to advise on GM trials'

Express Network, February 14 2008. By Prabhakar Rao Voruganti.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday requested the Ministry of Environment to invite eminent agricultural scientist M S Swaminathan and Dr P M Bhargav, the founder president of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, to help the GEAC (Genetically Engineered Approval Committee) frame guidelines for granting approval to applicants for field trials on genetically modified varieties.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Justice R V Raveendran and Justice J M Panchal also said that the GEAC should examine all aspects like bio-safety and the effect on ecology before granting the approval.

In a day-long argument Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner Aruna Rodrigues, strongly opposed the very idea of genetically modified varieties saying they would be disastrous for mankind.

France banned trials after discovering that rats exposed to genetically modified seeds suffered kidney and liver damage. Russia banned imports of American rice after finding that genetically engineered rice had certain defects.

In Indonesia the private company pioneering this work bribed 93 government officials to get favourable reports on the research carried out by them. When this came out the Indonesian Government imposed a fine of millions of dollars on the company, the counsel said.

In Germany the court ordered the release of research results by Monsanto when it was found that it was giving misleading and false reports, the counsel added.

The adverse effects of GM products are being felt by country after country. The matter is going to affect the future of humanity and ecology. The consequences will be irreversible, he stated.

The Bench said that with 29 members on the GEAC, 14 of them technical, it should not be a problem to screen applications and grant approvals.

Bhushan replied that the chairman, an Additional Secretary of the Government of India, was not a technical person; only the co-chairman was technically competent.

Since we do not know on what basis GEAC grants approvals a committee should be appointed to examine the issue. Based on its report the court may pass appropriate orders, the counsel said.

At one stage, the Bench said that the government was the regulatory body and it would not like to lay down any rules. Counsel for the private companies sought vacation of the stay imposed earlier by the apex court on conducting trials.

India: SC removes curbs on trial of GM crops

Times of India, 14 Feb 2008

NEW DELHI: Refusing to restrict research in genetically modified food crops, the Supreme Court on Wednesday opened up the field by permitting firms to seek permission from the regulatory body - Genetic Engineering Advisory Committee (GEAC) - for fresh trials, including open field trials.

The court said that the fear of the unknown - that GM food crops could spell hazard for the bio-safety and environment - could not be a ground to restrict the research in a country like India, which has millions to feed.

PIL petitioners Aruna Rodrigues and 'Gene Campaign' vehemently opposed any relaxation of the earlier court orders allowing research in 24 varieties of GM crops and that too within the safety parameters spelled out by it.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices R V Raveendran and J M Panchal said it was very difficult for the court to entertain PILs in high-stake technical issues as it had no expertise in the field, more so because the government had put in place an expert body like GEAC.

While permitting filing of pleas before GEAC to seek permission for research in new varieties of GM crops, the Bench acceded to petitioner's request to make two renowned agricultural scientists - Prof M S Swaminathan and Dr P M Bhargava - participate as invitees in the GEAC deliberations on these applications before grant of permission for trials.

On the request of Gene Campaign counsel Sanjay Parikh, the Bench asked GEAC to keep all aspects of the fallout of the field trials in mind before granting permission for further research. Rodrigues' counsel Prashant Bhushan questioned the credentials of GEAC and accused the co-chairman of serving on the board of a US firm having interest in GM foodgrains.

When government counsel pointed out that GEAC had more than 10 experts, SC said: "These are eminent scientists and we can't say they were unconscious of the interest of the nation." Bhushan then cited the Russian government's query about the GM contamination of foodgrains imported from India to buttress his argument that the hazardous effect of the GM crops were a global concern and could hit India's exports.

13 February 2008

China must prove its rice to be GMO free

GMO Compass, 13 February 2008.

Beginning on April 15, all imports of Chinese rice products into the European Union must be accompanied by a certificate to prove they are free from the unauthorised Bt 63 rice. This decision by the European Commission has found the support of Member States in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health in Brussels. However, the Committee failed to agree on the authorisation of two genetically modified plants for import and processing.

Rice products from China containing the unauthorised genetically modified Bt 63Ýrice were discovered first in France, Germany and the UK in September 2006. Although Chinese authorities assured the EU of taking appropriate measures to avoid further illegal shipments, alerts concerning the presence of Bt 63 occurred until late 2007. Furthermore, Beijing was unable to provide control samples and a protocol of a detection method that qualitatively and quantitatively were appropriate for use by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the Commission for validation of control methods used by Chinese authorities.

In light of such short-comings, the emergency measures adopted yesterday demand obligatory tests by an official or accredited laboratory using a specific testing method. A wide range of rice products are addressed, including rice noodles. Health Commissioner Markos Kyprianou said: "Under EU food safety legislation, only GMOs that have undergone a thorough scientific assessment and authorisation procedure may be put on the EU market." Member States are responsible for the execution of necessary controls. The measure is valid for six months and will be monitored by the Commission.

The Commission also presented to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health two proposals concerning the genetically modified soybean A2704-12 and cotton LL25. Submitted by Bayer CropScience in 2004 and 2005 respectively, the proposals exclude cultivation and apply for the authorisation of the plants for import and for processing in food and feed. After assessing all safety concerns, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has given a positive opinion towards the market placement for both cases.

However, as has been the case repeatedly since 1998, Member States did not reach a sufficient majority to support or to decline the authorisation. Under EU law, the Commission now will forward the proposals to the Council. If the Ministers will not reach a position within three months, the Commission assumes the responsibility for a decision.

GMO plantings rise, greens cite environment risks

The Guardian / Reuters, 13 February 2008. By Jeremy Smith.

BRUSSELS, Feb 13 (Reuters) - Plantings of genetically modified (GMO) crops are increasingly widespread, a biotech industry body said on Wednesday, despite some public opposition and warnings by environmentalists that they may be unsafe.

"After a dozen years of commercialisation, biotech crops are still gaining ground with another year of growth and new countries joining the list of supporters," the biotech industry backed International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) said. "With rising food prices globally, the benefits of biotech crops have never been more important," it added ahead of the release of its annual report on GMO crops.

International environment lobby Friends of the Earth (FoE) said there was a growing tide of anti-GMO opinion, particularly in Europe.

"Less than 2 percent of the total maize grown in the EU is genetically modified and five EU countries have now banned (U.S. biotech company) Monsanto maize because of growing evidence of its negative environmental impact," it said in a report timed to coincide with the ISAAA data.

FoE said GMO crops had not helped alleviate poverty and their yields were no higher than those of conventional crops -- a claim hotly disputed by the world's biotech companies.

"The vast majority of GM crops commercialised so far are destined for animal feed for the meat and livestock markets in rich industrialised nations rather than for feeding the poor," the FoE report said.

"Frankenstein foods"

Since biotech crops tended to be "part of the intensive farming model", they contributed to small farmers losing their land and therefore did not alleviate poverty, it said.

FoE also cited government studies saying there had been large increases in the use of the RoundUp, or glyphosate, herbicide in both Brazil and the United States.

"This is resulting in increasing numbers of glyphosate-resistant weeds around the world, leading to higher production costs for farmers as well as concerns about the environmental impact," the report said.

Later on Wednesday, the biotech industry-supported International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) will issue its annual report on GMO crop plantings and is expected to announce another year of area increases with biotech crops sown in more countries.

Last year, ISAAA said the global GMO planted area grew by 13 percent to 252 million acres in 2006. Numbers of farmers planting GMO crops rose 21 percent due to substantial economic, social, environmental, and agronomic benefits, it said.

In Europe, however, attitudes towards GMO foods and crops differ substantially from those in the United States, the world's top supplier of biotech crops.

European consumers are well known for their scepticism, if not hostility, to GMO crops, often dubbed as "Frankenstein foods". But the international biotech industry says its products are safe and no different from conventional foods.

That argument has not yet convinced many of the EU's 27 governments into reaching a consensus to speed up Europe's rate of new GMO authorisations.

So far, only one GMO crop is grown in the EU -- an insect-resistant maize type developed by Monsanto.

(Editing by Chris Johnson)

EU biofuels strategy supports human rights 'disaster' say Indonesian NGOs

EU Observer, 13 February 2008. By Leigh Philips.

BRUSSELS - The EU is fuelling widespread human rights abuses on palm oil plantations across Indonesia via its support for biofuels, a coalition of indigenous advocacy, human rights and environmental groups say.

Palm oil companies often use violent tactics to grab land from indigenous communities in the country, according to a report from Sawit Watch, an Indonesian human rights NGO; Life Mosaic, a UK-based indigenous advocacy group; and Friends of the Earth Europe.

The groups say that growing western demand for biofuels, and EU targets to increase the use of biofuels in transport in particular, are causing these violations.

When communities protest the loss of their lands, private security firms and Indonesian police that collude with the companies crack down on native peoples, says the report, Losing Ground. They depend on these lands for food, medicines and building materials ‚ lands that are now rapidly being turned into palm oil plantations.

"This all used to be the community's land!" the report quotes one community leader from Sumatra, "It was all seized [by the company]. It was defending this land that two of our men got killed. They were kidnapped and killed."

The communities also say that local rivers have far less water than before the plantations were established.

At the same time, recurrent flooding in the rainy season has been a problem in the palm oil regions, as plantations affect natural drainage patterns.

Abetnego Tarigan, Deputy Director of Sawit Watch said: "Oil palm companies have already taken over 7.3 million hectares of land for plantations, resulting in 513 ongoing conflicts between companies and communities."

And Indonesia, the world's largest producer of crude palm oil is now planning to expand plantation areas by a further 20 million hectares ‚ an area the size of England, the Netherlands and Switzerland combined, says the report.

The native groups complain that they are tricked by companies who promise communities schools, irrigation projects and new roads that never materialise, or bribe chiefs with money or holidays.

The report also describes how palm oil mills are polluting water on which the communities also depend by discharging effluent into open water courses.

EU biofuel targets responsible

As part of its strategy to tackle climate change, the European Union has set targets for ten per cent of all transport fuel to come from biofuels by 2020.

The groups are demanding the EU immediately ban all imports of palm oil for biofuels and energy until safeguards are introduced, and adopt legally binding restrictions on investment and subsidies for palm-oil-based fuels.

They also want the EU to abandon its ten percent biofuels for transport target.

"Fuels from palm oil are a disaster for people, said Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth Europe agrofuels campaigner.

Serge Marti from Life Mosaic, the author of the report, said: Europe we must realise that encouraging large fuel companies to grab community land across the developing world is no solution to climate change.

'Renewables can't solve all the world's problems'

Responding to the report, the commission's energy spokesperson, Ferran Tarradellas Espuny, said that human rights issues are addressed by various other different EU policies, but energy policy is not where the problem of human rights is dealt with.

"The renewables directive cannot solve all the problems of the world. We are trying to use biofuels in a way that the environmental benefits are higher than otherwise," he said.

Nonetheless, he opened the door to consideration of the issue, adding at the same time, "If there is any issue that makes reference to human rights, including the production of biofuels, then certainly it is something the commission is always very willing to hear about."

But he pointed out that traditional fossil fuel come with their own social concerns: "We should not forget that the alternative to biofuels is oil, and we could say a lot of things about human rights and oil."

Representatives of the biodiesel industry pointed out that most European palm oil imports goes into food products, not biofuels.

"In Europe in 2000, 2 million tonnes of palm oil were imported. Last year, some 5 million tonnes were imported, but of this, less than three per cent went into biodiesel," Raffaello Garofalo, the secretary general of the European Biodiesel Board told EUobserver.

"We have to stop the demonisation of biofuels," he added.

"Human rights is the responsibility of the United Nations, not biofuels, but we're not opposed to human rights certification alongside environmental sustainability criteria."

One commission official echoed the industry comments: "I don't know why they're bothering about this ‚ palm oil represents almost nothing of European biofuel production. It's mostly used for margarine.

"Why don't these groups look at all the jobs biofuels are creating in places like Brazil?" the official asked.

Friends of the Earth, however, responds that the indirect results of growing demand for biofuels is as much to blame for the human rights violations as the demand itself.

"Europe's food industry used to use a lot of rapeseed oil in their products, but they've had to switch over to palm oil, as rapeseed oil is being swallowed up by the European biodiesel industry," said Adrian Webb.

Indonesian biofuels creating 3.5 million jobs

The Indonesian government denies that the human rights abuses are occurring. The agricultural attachÈ of Indonesia's mission to the European Union, Edy Hartulistiyoso, told EUobserver: "All of [the special biofuel zones] are lands that are considered barren for agricultural purposes.

"Protected rain forests are strictly forbidden by law to be used," he added.

Mr Hartulistiyoso pointed out that his country's biofuels strategy is committed to implementing the sustainable development recommendations of the Roundtable of Sustainable Palm Oil Programme (RSPO), and aims to create jobs for 3.5 million people, and that provincial governments are ensuring the participation of local communities.

The report comes at a time when environmentalists and the commission's own scientists are saying that biofuels may actually result in a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions, rather than a reduction.

In Indonesia, for example, the Losing Ground report also notes, fires used to clear the land and peat bogs for palm oil are drained, releasing hundreds of millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide, making Indonesia the third highest contributor of CO2 emissions in the world.

Thus when the commission announced its biofuels target for transport, to assuage environmental concerns, it proposed environmental sustainability criteria for the controversial energy source.

At the time of the announcement, however, social criteria for biofuel sources were ruled out.

Background to EU emergency measures on Chinese rice

Friends of the Earth UK, 13 February 2008. By Clare Oxborrow.

Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace discovered Bt63 rice contamination back in 2006 http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/illegal_gm_rice_found_in_u_05092006.html and have been calling for EU action to stop illegal imports since then.

Initially they refused to take any action on Chinese rice as they thought the government was taking the steps needed to deal with the contamination.

The latest case of rice contaminated with Bt63 from China was reported in November last year by Sweden and Germany. Now the EC have announced emergency measures to prevent import of rice contaminated with Bt63, but it's unclear why it will only implemented in April.

Here's the European Commission press release:
http://www.endseuropedaily.com/docs/80212b.doc

EU Commission requires certification for Chinese rice products to stop unauthorised GMO from entering the EU

EU Commission press release, 13 February 2008.

The European Commission decided today to require compulsory certification for the imports of Chinese rice products that could contain the unauthorised GMO Bt63. The decision has been taken after rice products -originating in, or consigned from, China and containing the unauthorised genetically modified rice "Bt 63"- were discovered in the EU market between 2006 and 2007. Despite measures announced by the Chinese authorities in 2007, alerts concerning the presence of the unauthorised genetically modified rice "Bt 63" were reported until late 2007. The emergency measures adopted by the Commission today mean that, as of April 15, only consignments of the rice products indicated in a specific Annex of the Decision can enter the EU. These consignments must be tested by an official or accredited laboratory using a specific testing method and accompanied by the analytical report assuring they do not contain Bt63.

Health Commissioner Markos Kyprianou said: "Under EU food safety legislation, only GMOs, which have undergone a thorough scientific assessment and authorisation procedure, may be put on the EU market. The decision adopted today aims to prevent the unauthorised Bt63 rice from reaching EU consumers, by ensuring that only rice products certified as free from this GMO enter the EU."

China is responsible for ensuring that Bt63 does not enter the EU food chain and that imports are certified as free from this unauthorised GMO. Member State authorities are responsible for controlling the imports at their borders and for preventing any contaminated consignments from being placed on the market. In addition, they should carry out controls on products already on the market, to ensure that they are free from Bt63. Business operators importing rice products from China are also responsible for ensuring that Bt63 does not enter the EU food chain and that imports are certified as free from this unauthorised GMO, in accordance with the EU food law principle that operators are responsible for the safety of the food or feed that they place on the market.

The presence of the unauthorised Bt63 was first discovered in the United Kingdom, France and Germany and notified to the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) in September 2006.

The Chinese competent authorities were immediately requested to provide detailed information concerning the genetic constructs of the unauthorised GMO. In response, the Chinese authorities conducted checks on the cases notified in the RASFF and suspended exports by the enterprises concerned. They also decided to carry out testing on exported rice and rice products and required exporting enterprises to strengthen controls over raw material purchasing.

Despite this first set of measures, a new finding of the unauthorised genetically modified rice "Bt 63" was once again notified through the RASFF in February 2007. The Chinese authorities were immediately informed by the Commission of this new alert and requested to provide additional guarantees. As a result, they decided to strengthen the sampling and testing of rice products and required rice products to be accompanied by an official Chinese Inspection and Quarantine Certificate.

Despite the measures of the Chinese authorities, other alerts concerning the presence of "Bt 63" were subsequently reported. Furthermore, the Chinese authorities were unable to provide the Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) with the requested control samples and a protocol of a detection method that were qualitatively and quantitatively appropriate for the JRC to validate the detection method used by the Chinese control authorities.

Against the described background the Commission believes it is now appropriate to proceed immediately with the adoption of emergency measures, which will impose on an important number of rice products originating from China a compulsory certificate, based on a test carried out by an official or accredited laboratory using a specific testing method.

This decision has been submitted to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on 12 February 2008 and the Committee gave its favourable opinion. The measures will enter into force from the 15th of April 2008 in order to allow the Member States to take the practical arrangements for its implementation. The situation shall be reassessed after six months. The Commission will continue to actively monitor the situation and adapt the measures if necessary.

GM crops increase pesticide use, offer no respite for hunger

Africa Science News Service, 13 February 2008. Written by ASNS Lagos Correspondent.

In 2007 GM crops still failed to tackle hunger and poverty in developing countries, instead have shown to increase use of pesticides contrary to expectations

A new report released today in Brussels, Lagos and Kuala Lumpur shows that planting genetically modified (GM) crops is causing an increased use of harmful pesticides in major biotech crop producing countries.

The 2008 edition of the Friends of the Earth International "Who Benefits from GM crops?" report series is titled "The Rise in Pesticide Use" and concludes that GM crops on the market today have on the whole caused an increase rather than a decrease in toxic pesticides use, and have failed to tackle hunger and poverty.

After more than a decade of GM crop cultivation, more than 70 percent of the area cultivated with biotech crops is still concentrated in only two countries: the US and Argentina.

To date, GM crops have done nothing to alleviate hunger or poverty in Africa or elsewhere.

"The biotech industry is telling Africans that we need GM crops to tackle the food needs of our population. But how can we believe such statements when the majority of GM crops are used to feed the animals of rich countries, produce industrial products like agrofuels, and overall don't yield more than conventional crops?", Nnimmo Bassey of Friends of the Earth Nigeria/ERA told Africa Science News Service.

"GM crops still fail to deliver the long-promised benefits. They are not good for the environment, as they are increasing pesticide use. In addition, they do not benefit small farmers or consumers in terms of quality or price," added Bassey.

The new report launch coincides with the annual release of the "Global Status of Commercialized Biotech" report of the industry-sponsored International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) which promotes GM crops as beneficial for the environment and a key solution to hunger and poverty. The GM crops industry continues to misleadingly claim that GM crops reduce pesticide use and play a role in tackling poverty and hunger.

The main conclusions of the 2008 report "The Rise in Pesticide Use" are that the GM crops are not 'green'. The adoption of Roundup Ready (RR) crops, the most extensively grown GM crop today, has led to an increase in pesticide use.

The report further notes that data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) shows that RR crops drove a more than 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate àthe herbicide associated with RR crops - on major field crops from 1994 to 2005. In 2006, the last year for which data is available, glyphosate use on soybeans jumped a substantial 28 percent. The intensity of glyphosate use has also risen dramatically. From 1994 to 2006, the amount of glyphosate applied per acre of soya rose by more than 150 percent.

The increase in glyphosate herbicide is no longer displacing other herbicides in the US. From 2002 to 2006 the use of 2,4-D àone of the most widely used herbicide in the world - on soybeans more than doubled, and the use of atrazine (an herbicide banned in Europe due to links to health problems) on corn increased by 12 per cent from 2002 to 2005.

In major RR soybean producer countries, like Brazil and Argentina, glyphosate use and weed resistance have risen. A 2007 study by a Brazilian governmental agency shows that the use of glyphosate increased 79.6 percent between 2000 to 2005, much faster than the expansion in area planted with RR soya. In 2007 a glyphosate-resistant weed called Johnson Grass infested over 120,000 ha in Argentina. An estimated 25 million litres of herbicides other than glyphosate will be needed, resulting in increasing production costs of between $160 to 950 million per year. In India, a 2007 study from Andhra University concluded that Bt cotton uses the same amount of pesticides as conventional cotton.

The report further notes in its conclusion that GM crops do not tackle hunger or poverty. Most GM crops commercialized so far are destined for animal feed, not for food, and none have been introduced to address hunger and poverty issues. GM crops are not providing help to small farmers in developing countries. In South Africa, for example since the adoption of Bt cotton, the number of small cotton farmers have plummeted from 3229 in 2001/02 to just 853 in 2006/07.

Overall, says the report, current GM crops do not yield more than other existing crop varieties.

RR Soybeans, the most widely planted GM crop in the world, does not have a higher yield performance than conventional soya. On the contrary, many studies show that RR soya has on average 5-10 percent lower yield than equivalent conventional varieties.

Bt cotton does not have higher yields than conventional cotton. In most countries where Bt cotton was adopted - such as the U.S., Argentina, Colombia, and Australia - overall cotton yields remained constant. In other countries, like India and China, the yield increase is mainly due to weather conditions and other production factors not related to GM technology. For example Xinjiang, the Chinese province with the highest cotton production and the highest average yield in China, grows mostly conventional cotton, not Bt varieties.

New report: GM crops increase pesticide use and fail to alleviate poverty

Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 13 February 2008.

Brussels (Belgium), Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), Lagos (Nigeria) -- Genetically Modified (GM) crops have led to a massive increase in pesticide use and have failed to increase yields or tackle world hunger and poverty, a new report by Friends of the Earth reveals today (Wednesday 13 February). [1] The report coincides with the annual release of biotech industry figures on GM crop cultivation around the world. [2]

Friends of the Earth International's GMO coordinator in Nigeria, Nnimmo Bassey said: "GM crops have failed to deliver the long-promised benefits of the biotech industry. Instead, increased pesticide use caused by these crops threatens the environment and communities around the world."

"The biotech industry tells Africans that we need GM crops to tackle the food needs of our population. But the majority of GM crops are used to feed animals in rich countries, to produce damaging agrofuels, and don't even yield more than conventional crops."

Helen Holder, European GMO campaign coordinator said: "It is now clearer than ever that the EU is right to take a precautionary approach to genetically modified crops. GM crops are not the solution to the urgent environmental and economic challenges facing farmers both in Europe and in developing countries. More and more evidence is showing that around the world green farming methods are providing real solutions whilst boosting local economies and creating jobs."

Friends of the Earth International's report "Who Benefits from GM crops?" 2008 finds that:

•

The adoption of GM crops has led to a significant increase in pesticide use.

Government studies show a 15-fold increase in the use of the herbicide RoundUp (glyphosate) in the United States and an almost 80 per cent increase in Brazil [3]. This is resulting in increasing numbers of glyphosate-resistant weeds around the world, leading to higher production costs for farmers as well as concerns about the environmental impact [4].

The US also reports increasing use of more toxic pesticides, including one banned in Europe:

- The increase in glyphosate is no longer displacing other herbicides in the US. From 2002 to 2006 the use of 2,4,D (a component of agent orange) on soybeans more than doubled

- The use of atrazine (banned in the EU due to links to health problems) on corn increased by 12 per cent in the US from 2002 to 2005.

•

GM crops do not tackle hunger or poverty

The vast majority of GM crops commercialised so far are destined for animal feed for the meat and livestock markets in rich industrialised nations rather than for feeding the poor. GM crops, as part of the intensive farming model, contribute to small farmers losing their land and livelihoods and do not alleviate poverty. [5]

Industry often claims that genetically modified cotton (Bt cotton) has boosted overall cotton yields thus contributing to poverty alleviation for farmers. However, close examination of these claims shows that favourable weather conditions, a shift to irrigation and the introduction of improved seed that is not genetically modified explain the improved yield. Also, in several countries, farmers who paid a premium for Bt cotton seed ended up spending as much on chemical insecticides as farmers growing conventional cotton.

•

Overall, GM crops do not yield more than other crops

Even the US Department of Agriculture admits that no GM crop on the market has been modified to increase yields. The main factors influencing crop yield are weather, irrigation and fertilizers, soil quality and farmers' management skills [6].

•

GMOs continue to fail in Europe

Less than 2 per cent of the total maize grown in the EU is genetically modified [7] and five EU countries have now banned Monsanto's maize because of growing evidence of its negative environmental impact. A review of biotechnology in the European Union in 2007 confirmed that the GM crop sector is not performing well. On the other hand, green farming methods such as organic farming are creating more jobs, boosting rural economies and are safer for the environment [8].

A Question and Answer document focused on showing that GM crops do not help meet the Millennium Development Goals of halving hunger and poverty by 2015 is available at:
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/Who_Benefits/QA_FINAL_FEB08.pdf

For more information please contact:

AFRICA: Nnimmo Bassey, Friends of the Earth Nigeria, Tel: +234 8037274395 (mobile) or +234 52602680 (office)

ASIA: Nizam Mahshar, Friends of the Earth Malaysia, Tel: +60 194777755

EUROPE: Helen Holder, Friends of the Earth Europe in Brussels: +32 474 857 638 or +32 2 542 01 82

AMERICAS: Karen Nansen, Friends of the Earth Uruguay, Tel: +598 99 524 003

Notes to editors

[1] The executive summary of the report is available online at:
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/Who_Benefits/Ex_Summary_Feb08.pdf

The executive summary of the report is available IN SPANISH online at: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/Who_Benefits/FULL_REPORT_FINAL_FEB08_ES.pdf

The executive summary of the report is available IN FRENCH online at: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/Who_Benefits/FULL_REPORT_FINAL_FEB08_FR.pdf

The full report is available online at:
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/Who_Benefits/FULL_REPORT_FINAL_FEB08.pdf

[2] The new report launch coincides with the annual release of the "Global Status of Commercialized Biotech" report of the industry-sponsored International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) which promotes GM crops as beneficial for the environment and a key solution to hunger and poverty. The GM crops industry continues to misleadingly claim that GM crops reduce pesticide use and play a role in tackling poverty and hunger.

[3] Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows that from 1994 to 2005 Monsanto's Roundup Ready crops have driven a more than 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate. In 2006 alone, glyphosate use on soybeans jumped 28 per cent from 2005 to reach almost 100 million pounds (approx 44 million kg).

Last year, a study by a Brazilian governmental agency found that the use of glyphosate increased 80 per cent from 2000 to 2005, much faster than the expansion in area planted to RR soya.

[4] Worldwide 58 reports of glyphosate-resistant weeds have been identified, infesting an estimated 3,251 sites covering 1 million hectares. Experts agree this is caused by continuous planting of RR crops and over-reliance on glyphosate. In Argentina in 2007 a glyphosate-resistant weed called Johnson Grass had infested over 120,000 ha. It is estimated that 25 million litres of herbicides other than glyphosate will be needed to tackle this weed, increasing production costs of between $160 to 950 million per year.

[5] In South Africa, since the adoption of Bt cotton, the number of small cotton farmers have plummeted from 3229 in 2001/02 to just 853 in 2006/07. In India, GM cotton is failing to address problems like increased costs of seeds and inputs leading to spiralling farmer debts and 942 documented farmer suicides in 2007 alone (to October). Numerous conflicts between big landowners and local communities have been reported, including the shooting of a peasant farmer in Brazil by militia linked with Syngenta in Paraguay, soya expansion is associated with increasing rural poverty. 90 per cent of soya grown is GM and up to 40 per cent of people in rural areas living below the poverty line.

[6] Monstanto's Roundup Ready Soybeans - the most widely planted GM crop in the world ‚ do not produce higher yields than conventional soya. In fact many studies have found on average 5-10 per cent lower yields than highly similar conventional varieties.

Insect resistant Bt cotton does not have higher yields than conventional cotton:

•

In the U.S., Argentina, Colombia, and Australia overall cotton yields have remained constant.

•

In India and China, the yield increase is mainly due to weather conditions and production factors not related to GM technology. For example in China, the province with the highest cotton production and the highest average yield (Xinjiang), grows mostly conventional cotton, not GM Bt varieties.

[7] Only one GM crop is grown in the European Union, Monsanto's Bt maize (MON810) that is genetically modified to produce a "built-in" insecticide. The biotech industry announced a 77 per cent increase in the surface area of GM crops being grown in the EU in 2007 which brings the overall surface area from less than 1 per cent to just under 2 per cent. The country showing the biggest increase, France, has just announced a ban on the maize for health and environmental reasons.

[8] Evidence from academic and governmental sources compiled by Friends of the Earth Europe: http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2007/FoEE_biotech_MTR_midlifecrisis_Ma rch07.pdf

Report Raises Alarm over 'Superweeds'
Use of herbicides such as Monsanto's Roundup is on the rise. As weeds become resistant, environmental activists blame genetically modified crops

Business Week, Top Story, February 13 2008. by Brian Hindo.

It's been 12 years since the first genetically modified crop was sown in the U.S., and controversy has raged since. Now, another salvo has been launched, in the form of a new report from environmental activist organization Friends of the Earth International and the Center for Food Safety, a Washington (D.C.) advocacy group. Called Who Benefits from GM Crops?, the study examines the emergence of "superweeds" that have developed a resistance to conventional herbicides such as Monsanto's (MON) Roundup. The culprits, says the report, are plants like corn, soybeans, and cotton that have been genetically modified to survive Roundup. Farmers can spray their fields and the weeds will die but the crops will thrive.

As more acres of "Roundup Ready" crops are planted, the use of the pesticide has increased. The increased application has led some weeds to develop a resistance to glyphosate, the generic term for the chemical in Roundup. And, in turn, farmers have had to apply stronger doses of pesticide to kill the superweeds.

According to the report, the amount of weed-killing herbicides used by farmers has exploded, rising fifteenfold since biotech crops were first planted. The report lists eight weeds in the U.S.-among them horseweed, common waterhemp, and hairy fleabane-that have developed resistance to glyphosate, the most commonly applied pesticide. The next generations of biotech seeds include some that have been modified to withstand stronger doses of herbicides, while another strategy has been to develop tolerances to different herbicides and to combine multiple types of resistance in the same seed. "It's a chemical arms race against these weeds," says Bill Freese, a policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety and a co-author of the report.

Monsanto Profit Forecast Up

In response, Monsanto said in an e-mailed statement: "The Friends of the Earth report makes numerous inaccurate and false claims. Information sources cited are rarely from peer reviewed scientific journals or research and are not representative of actual impacts." Apropos weed resistance, the company said, in part, "Monsanto takes product stewardship and claims of resistance to glyphosate very seriously. "Monsanto also sponsors internal and external research to understand the various aspects of glyphosate-resistant weeds, and research on best management practices in Roundup Ready crops."

The boost in herbicide use is proving to be a financial boon for Monsanto. Its Roundup business was thought to be an albatross, as the pesticide came off patent in 2000 and revenue quickly plunged. Chief Executive Hugh Grant hastened the company's shift away from reliance on Roundup sales to an emphasis on GMO (genetically modified organism) seeds-in particular, commodity crops such as corn and soy, which are the grist for animal feed, food processing, and biofuels. As demand for agricultural commodities has soared in recent years, stoked by growing wealth and changing diets in developing nations, so too have the plantings of GMOs (BusinessWeek, 12/6/07).

But as more seeds with a baked-in resistance to Roundup are planted around the world, it's helping prop up sales of the herbicide. Some 80% of biotech seeds have herbicide-tolerance in them, and the vast majority of those tolerate Roundup specifically. In fact, on Feb. 12, Monsanto Executive Vice-President Brett Begemann told investors at a conference that the company would raise its 2008 earnings guidance, thanks in part to better-than-anticipated Roundup sales. In the company's first fiscal quarter, sales of Roundup and other chemicals jumped 47%. The company expects up to $1.4 billion in gross profit for the year from its chemicals business, Begemann said, which would be a 10% increase from 2007. (Monsanto forecasts $3.5 billion in gross profit from its seeds businesses, a 16% increase.)

Superweeds are most directly a nuisance for farmers, who have to work harder to tend their fields and spend more on buying and applying herbicides. But the impact reaches consumers, too, argues Freese, as increased levels of chemicals hit plants and can work their way into groundwater. So far, the concerns have not hindered the adoption of biotech crops: On Feb. 13, a biotech industry group, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, is expected to release its own report showing an uptick in plantings of GMO crops around the world.

But many of the side effects, both actual and potential, continue to stir debate. Companies such as Monsanto, DuPont's (DD) Pioneer, and Syngenta (SYT) must submit environmental assessments to the U.S. Agriculture Dept.'s Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) before a biotech plant can be approved for commercial use. Freese argues, however, that more rigorous regulatory evaluations of biotech crops' impact can stave off environmental side effects. In March, 2007, a federal judge in Northern California halted plantings of biotech alfalfa, ruling that the USDA's oversight was inadequate.

For its part, Monsanto said in the Feb. 12 statement: "As part of the petition for deregulation, Monsanto includes information on glyphosate-resistant weeds and Monsanto's weed resistance stewardship program. USDA reviews that information, along with other information such as research journal articles, in preparing their environmental assessment."

Academics have been studying the impact of GMOs, but the research is still nascent. Just last November, the National Academy of Sciences convened a workshop of entomologists, geneticists, biologists, and others to discuss research priorities on how genetically engineered plants and animals impact the environment. The results are expected later in the year.

Hindo is BusinessWeek's Corporate Strategies editor in New York.

Comment by GM Watch:

Monsanto is DIRECTLY profiting from the massive increase in chemical use it is triggering: "In the company's first fiscal quarter, sales of Roundup and other chemicals jumped 47%. The company expects up to $1.4 billion in gross profit for the year from its chemicals business, Begemann said, which would be a 10% increase from 2007."

GM trials in India threaten trade ties

The Times of India, 13 Feb 2008

NEW DELHI: India finds itself increasingly on the defensive in agricultural trade for permitting field trials across the country in a host of genetically modified (GM) food crops - rice, brinjal, okra, potato, tomato and groundnuts - and thereby exposing conventional crops to the risk of transgenic contamination.

A case in point is a rather dodgy no-contamination certificate that the regulator, Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), was forced to give two months ago in response to a restriction imposed by Russia on import of rice, groundnuts and sesame seeds from India.

Apprehending transgenic contamination, Russia had insisted on a written confirmation from the government that "no GM crops in rice, groundnuts and sesame seeds exist in India".

This put GEAC in a fix since extensive GM field trials are admittedly going on in two of the three specified items, namely, rice and groundnuts. So, GEAC qualified its reply by saying that no GM crops of those three food items exist "in commercial production" in India.

It remains to be seen whether Russia would be taken in by GEAC's certificate, which is misleading as the ongoing GM field trials in rice and groundnuts are meant to be a prelude to commercial production.

Even otherwise, field trials too are fraught with the risk of leading to GM contamination of the neighbouring conventional crops because of notoriously lax safeguards. This is evident from a ban imposed by the government on GM trials or research in basmati rice and in basmati-growing areas. The idea is to save basmati rice from the stigma of GM contamination so that India retains its competitive edge in the trade of this much valued food crop.

An advisory issued by the government takes pains to say: "No GM trials or research have been permitted by Government of India in basmati and basmati growing areas. Therefore, rice grown in India is GM free and there is no cause of concern with regard to any possible GM contamination of Indian rice."

In another major setback to the GM lobby, Nature Biotechnology, the most prestigious scientific journal in the field, came out this month with the first documented case of pest resistance to Bt cotton, which happens to be the only GM crop that has so far been cleared for commercial production in India.

According to the journal, a team of scientists from the University of Arizona in US has found the first confirmation that insects have developed resistance to transgenic crops, reinforcing the worst-case scenario portrayed by critics of GM crops.

The report comes in the run-up to a key hearing in the Supreme Court on Wednesday on a contempt petition filed by activist Aruna Rodrigues against GEAC for clearing fresh field trials in brinjal and other food crops last year despite a judicial stay.

The petition singles out Bt brinjal as a "critical bio-safety hazard" since India is the "functional centre of origin" for that vegetable.

Japanese activists tell Australia to stay GM free

Greenpeace media release, 13 February 2008.

Kashima, Japan, Wednesday, 13th February 2008: Early this morning Japanese activists placed a message on a cargo ship telling Australia to reject genetically modified (GM) canola. The message, projected onto a ship carrying GM canola and a nearby grain silo read "Australia stay GM free!".

The action comes just days after the South Australian Government announced that it would extend its GM food crop ban, due to concerns over loss of markets such as Japan. However, New South Wales and Victoria still intend to let their GM food crop bans expire this year, opening up Australia to GM contamination. This will threaten the entire country's GM free reputation and international markets.

Last year Japan accounted for 80 per cent of Australian canola exports (1).

Koichi Kato, Chairperson of the Seikatsu Club Consumers' Co-operative Union in Japan said, "I am concerned that GM- free canola across Australia will be contaminated if GM canola is introduced in New South Wales and Victoria. If that happens, we would unfortunately be forced to import canola from countries other than Australia."

There is growing consumer resistance to GM food in Japan. Polling by the Japanese Government in 2006 showed that 78 per cent of Japanese consumers are uncertain about the impacts of eating GM food. Last year a Japanese delegation came to Australia to deliver a petition representing 2.9 million Japanese consumers, urging state governments to extend their GM food crop bans.

Another important export market for Australian canola is Europe. Canada completely lost its canola seed exports to Europe as a result of adopting GM canola, and it is likely that the same thing would happen to Australia if it were to go GM. Australian canola currently attracts preferential market access and premiums because of its GM free status.

Greenpeace Japan GMO Campaigner Sachiyo Tanahashi said, "The experience in Canada has proven that segregation is impossible and that contamination is inevitable wherever GM canola is grown. In Japan we even have wild GM canola growing on our wharves and roadsides as weeds, due to the transport of Canadian seeds for crushing. The introduction of GM canola to Australia would remove choice for both farmers and consumers who want to remain GM free.

"Because Australia is Japan's main source of GM free canola, if Australia introduces GM canola Japanese companies will have to look elsewhere for a non-GM product. We don't understand why any Australian farmers would want to grow a product that consumers are rejecting all over the world," said Ms Tanahashi.

(1) Source: Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Contacts:

Kaoru Narisawa, Greenpeace Japan Media Officer: +81 80 6558 4446
Sachiyo Tanahashi, Greenpeace Japan GMO Campaigner: +81-80-5416-6507
Teri Calder, Greenpeace Australia Media Officer: +61 419 697 515
Louise Sales, Greenpeace Australia Genetic Engineering Campaigner: +61 438 679 263

GM 'failing to keep promises'

Press Association, 13 February 2008

Genetically-modified crops are not delivering on the promised benefits of increased yields or reduced pesticides, Friends of the Earth has claimed ahead of a report from the industry on the growth of GM.

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) is expected to detail the rise in GM crops and the contribution they are making to tackling world hunger and poverty.

But a Friends of the Earth report released ahead of the biotech industry's annual announcement said damaging pesticides are on the increase as a result of widespread farming of the plants.

And rather than tackling poverty in developing countries, much of the GM crops grown - the vast majority of which are in the US and South America - are used for animal feed or for biofuels, the environmental group's report said.

Genetically-modified soya, maize and cotton make up 95% of the total acreage of GM and none of the crops introduced so far has increased yield, or enhanced nutrition, drought-tolerance or salt-tolerance, the report said.

Because they are genetically engineered to be tolerant of pesticides they allow farmers to spray herbicides more frequently - which in turn encourages the growth of herbicide-resistant plants.

The report claims widespread take-up of GM crops resistant to the herbicide glyphosate. It also claims an emergence of weeds tolerant of the chemical have caused a 15-fold increase in the use of the herbicide between 1994 and 2005.

The herbicide is not replacing other products, Friends of the Earth said.

According to the 'Who Benefits from GM Crops?' report, the use of the pesticide atrazine, banned in the EU because of links to health problems such as breast and prostate cancer, has increased by 12% on maize in the US from 2002 to 2005.

Friends of the Earth also claims GM products have not increased food security for the world's poor, with none of the crops on the market modified for increasing yields.

Ireland: ICMSA in treaty warning to Government

The Irish Examiner, 13 February 2008.

A leading farmers' group is warning the Government that its members need to be convinced of the merits of the Lisbon Treaty.

The Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association says its 14,000 members are unsure how they will vote and may use the referendum to convey their dissatisfaction with European Commission.

It says the Government should not take a rural Yes vote for granted.

Ireland: Stuart Townsend opposes GM food

The Irish Examiner, Word on the Street. By John Daly.

Stuart Townsend's directorial debut fuses real footage with fiction against a backdrop of the anti-globalisation riots in Seattle in 1999. John Daly Reports.

As a self-confessed political junkie, Stuart Townsend thinks it's no surprise that his first directorial effort concerns the violent and bloody protest centered around the World Trade Organisation's 1999 meeting in Seattle which brought the city to a standstill.

Battle in Seattle charts the running battles between police and 60,000 anti-globalisation protestors. The scale of the demonstration and the dramatic events they unleashed fired Townsend's imagination for a story he felt had to be told.

"The mainstream media covered it in a way that really didn't tell the whole story; the protest element was marginalised," says Townsend. "It was an event that set a new level for what was growing all over the world at the time. I thought it was a good story about a point in time that deserved more. The more the idea o fmaking a film about it took hold, the more it dominated my life."

Having lived in California for a decade, the 36-year old Dubliner thinks the film's premise is timely, given the increasing awareness of environmental and global politics now occupying the minds of the US electorate.

"George Bush has politicised the world, no question," he says. "Many people I know are activists and environmentalists, so I thought here was a chance to do something that was important."

Using his contacts and "vast reserves of optimism", Townsend assembled a cast which includes Woody Harrelson, Ray Litotta, Michelle Rodrigez, André Benjamin and his longtime partner Charlize Theron, in a script that weaves multiple fictional storylines with actual footage of the event.

"The more I learned about what happened in Setallte, the more I saw it as a film", recalls Townsend. "The war in Iraq has taken much of the attention in the intervening years, but the issues that prompted the events in Seattle are still as relevant. People don't want to eat genetically modified food or breathe polluted air, issues which were at the heart of Seattle. These are global concerns that will not go away."

[long section about living in LA deleted]

Battle in Seattle screens at the Dublin International Film Festival on Saturday.

GM economics:
King controversy - evidence doesn't support chief scientist's claim for GM crops

The Ecologist, 13 February 2008.

The [UK] Government has been unable to substantiate public remarks made by its outgoing chief scientific adviser Sir David King that not investing in GM agriculture has cost the UK economy GBP4bn.

Sir David made the claim before the Government Select Committee on Innovation, Universities and Skills. He also accused BBC Radio 4's Today programme and the Daily Mail of stirring up 'gut fears' about GM.

In a statement to the Ecologist, his office said: 'Sir David's estimate was not based on the current market for GM crops, but was intended to reflect the potentially much larger European and global markets he considers would have existed had public concerns about the new technology been understood and addressed. Before hostility to GM crops, [the UK was] in a prime position to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by GM technologies and UK companies could have expected to take a significant share of the global market. This expertise, and the associated competitive advantage, has now been largely lost.'

Earlier in 2007, Professor Howard Davies, of the Scottish Crop Research Institute, estimated the entire worldwide GM industry to be worth only GBP2.5bn. In fact, the Soil Association estimates that investing in GM crops may have cost the US some $12bn between 1999 and 2001.

Sir David's comments came as veteran MP Michael Meacher proposed an Early Day Motion in Parliament calling on MPs to voice public regret at 'continuing attempts to silence or misrepresent scientists whose research indicates possible health problems from GM crops.'

At the time of going to press, 23 MPs had signed the motion, which was in part a response to attacks on campaign group GM Watch by Canadian Government employee Shane Morris, exposed on the GM Watch website for rigging research into GM crops (Comments, Dec/Jan 2008).

Meacher told the Ecologist he found the bias towards GM technologies within government and industry 'very worrying', and hoped the EDM would 'open people's eyes to the interplay between science and politics'.

His comments came in response to the first public appearance of Sir David King's successor, Professor John Beddington, who said he saw no safety reasons for opposing the growth of GM crops on UK soil. Shortly before Christmas the Daily Mail exposed one of David King's 'examples' of the benefits of GM crops as being false.

The Ecologist, Editorial by Pat Thomas. 13 February 2008.

'We'd really like a woman to talk about this,' said the researcher from BBC2's The Daily Politics show. I marvelled that TV was even more crass behind the scenes than on screen, and wondered did they perhaps imagine me wearing my pinny and brandishing a rolling pin, like Hilda Ogden? Or with cleavage a-popping and a warm apple pie on my lap, a la Nigella?

In any event the show, which focused on Government plans to push GM food back on to the marketplace, was an all-male affair, with the Soil Association's Patrick Holden isolated in a remote studio in Bristol while three pro-GM pundits (two in the studio, one on film) made their case.

The media's renewed interest in GM has been sparked by comments apparently made by departing chief scientific adviser Sir David King, to the effect that the public's attitude to GM is 'softening' and that acceptance of GM is now necessary and unavoidable if we are going to feed the world in the future. His successor John Beddington agrees.

The latter point is based on a widely held, but erroneous, assumption that people go hungry because we don't produce enough food. In fact, the UN estimates that we produce about one and a half times the amount we need to feed the entire world. People go hungry because of the unsustainable structure of our political and economic systems. They starve because of the free market, where everything goes to the highest bidder rather than to those who need it most.

The former point was worrying, though. Was the public going soft on GM? If anyone would know, our supermarkets ‚ all of which retain market research that can predict what you will have for breakfast next Tuesday ‚ would. We phoned around. All said they have no plans to introduce a GM 'choice' because there is no consumer demand.

The push is on, however, to create that demand, and the best argument our politicians can muster is the scientific equivalent of 'where's the harm?'. They can say truthfully that they have never seen any data showing that eating GM is harmful to humans, because, of course, the research has never been done. But lack of evidence does not equal evidence of safety. Indeed, from a scientific perspective, GM breaks every sacred tenet of science.

Where are the double-blind, randomised, controlled human trials ‚ and especially those involving pregnant women and children, the ones most likely to be harmed by the toxins present in GM foods? The animal data is truly frightening, showing sterility and increased neonatal deaths; not to mention cancer, systemic organ failures and allergic reactions. Why would any government sanction such madness?

The push for GM isn't because it will increase crop yield, or because it will reduce pesticide use, or because it will provide more nutritious food - GM delivers none of these things. The push for GM is about money. Indeed, David King suggests that by not embracing GM food our economy has already ëlost' between GBP2 billion and GBP4 billion ‚ a figure that appears to have been plucked out of thin air (see News, page 8).

And honestly, what is this piddling amount of money (roughly equivalent to eBay's annual turnover, or that of the video games industry) held up next to the GBP9 billion being spent on the Olympics, the GBP100 billion we will be spending on the nuclear weapons programme over the next 50 years or the GBP135 billion our Government spends in procurement of everything from paperclips to fuel?

The GM push is a short-term gamble on the future value of our 'knowledge economy' - our ability to generate profit by selling ideas to other (usually poorer) countries as a 'solution' to their problems ‚ never mind the long-term cost to biodiversity and human health.

Over the next few years you are going to be bombarded with a lot of stage-managed information about things such as GM, nuclear power and incinerators (see stories pages 28 and 44). This PR onslaught is the action of a Government that has been near-paralysed by the sheer scale and complexity of the problems we face, and as a result has resorted to PR instead of policies to 'fix' things. It's going to take people of character, intelligence and tenacity to keep saying no - and mean it.

Now, where exactly did I put my rolling pin...?

12 February 2008

EU experts clash on approving GMO cotton, soybean

Reuters, 12 February 2008.

BRUSSELS, Feb 12 (Reuters) - European Union biotech experts failed to agree on Tuesday on authorising two genetically modified (GMO) products, one soybean and one cotton type, passing the decision onto EU farm ministers, the European Commission said.

Both products are marketed by German drugs and chemicals group Bayer, which has requested EU approval for import and processing for general use in food and animal feed.

They would not be for cultivation in Europe's fields.

Experts representing the EU's 27 national governments failed to reach the consensus needed in the EU weighted voting system either to approve or r